Loading...
1994 04 12 PC0 tt�K,�Gv r h OF THE PLANNING COOMISSION ION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California April 12, 1994 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution 94-008 Beginning Minute Motion 94-012 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ............... CONTINUED - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035 Applicant ........... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ............ Approval of proposed development standards for commercial communications towers and related structures. Action ............. Resolution 94- PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. PC/AGENDA BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ............... CONTINUED - PLOT PLAN 93-495 Applicant .......... Simon Plaza, Inc., Mr. Phil Pead Location ........... Southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 Request ............ Approval of a modification to Condition #36 of the Conditions of Approval Action ............. Request to continue 2. Item ............... SIGN APPLICATION 94-247 Applicant .......... Morite of California - Red Robin Restaurant Location ........... North side of Highway 111 approximately 950 feet east of Washington Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Center Request ............ Approval of a sign adjustment to allow an additional sign for a restaurant Action ............. Minute Motion 94- 3. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT 27728 - THE QUARRY Applicant .......... Craig Bryant, Winchester Asset Management Lake Cahuilla Location ........... South and east of Request ............ Approval of architectural guidelines for custom residences Action ............. Minute Motion 94- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 1994. OTHER 1. Report of Council meeting by Planning Commissioner. ADJOURNMENT --------------- STUDY SESSION Tuesday, April 12, 1994 North Conference Room 4:00 P.M. 1. All agenda items. PC/AGENDA PH #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 12, 1994 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035 REQUEST: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES - TO BE ADDED AS CHAPTER 9.218 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE (ATTACHMENT 1) - CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 22, 1994 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 93-270 FOR THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE ORDINANCE WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED. BACKGROUND: Staff has prepared a draft ordinance regulating the location and development of commercial communications antennas, towers, and related structures. City Council directed staff to prepare this ordinance after the review of the PACTEL Cellular case (PUP 93-015) . The PACTEL application was for approval to attach additional antennas and microwave dishes to an existing tower at the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) complex on Avenue 58. The City of La Quinta does not have any ordinances or policies addressing commercial towers and antennas. Staff currently processes applications for towers as public use permits, utilizing existing height standards and zoning requirements. These standards are limited in usefulness when reviewing an application for a tower project. On September 21, 1993, staff presented to the City Council a copy of the draft ordinance as a study session item (Attachment 2) and received direction to circulate the document for agency review and comment and then set it for public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council (Attachment 3) . Staff transmitted the ordinance to 44 public and private entities (see Attachment 4) that might be affected or concerned with the ordinance. A review period was provided and comments were received. A cover letter from staff accompanied the draft ordinance transmittals (Attachment 5) . Several revisions were made taking agency comments into consideration, primarily those of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) . STAFFRPT.030 PROPOSED ORDINANCE: The proposed ordinance amendment (Attachment 1) is based upon an ordinance adopted in Multnomah County, Oregon, which was the subject of an American Planning Association special report. Staff has tailored the ordinance to La Quinta's environment and planning process. The ordinance is comprehensive and inclusive. This ordinance does not pertain to amateur ham radio towers. Ham radio requirements will be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance Update, which will begin soon. The proposed ordinance amendment contains eight sections which treat the consideration of commercial towers in a comprehensive manner. Listed below are the sections and a summary of their contents: 1. PURPOSE: this section lists seven goals the ordinance is intended to promote: aesthetics, structural safety, traffic safety, tower sharing, health safety, land use efficiency, and conflict avoidance. 2. DEFINITIONS: this section defines technical terms contained in the ordinance that are not found in our local Zoning Ordinance definition section. 3. WHERE PERMITTED: this section states that proposed towers can be located in any zone with an approved conditional use permit. 4. APPLICABILITY: this section is intended to list every type of transmission facility, and cross-reference to the applicable approval standards. The approval standards are the same for most transmission facilities, but some uses are not permitted in urban residential areas, and those that are permitted there must comply with additional standards. 5. EXEMPTIONS: this section clarifies the equipment that is exempt from this ordinance. Six categories of equipment are exempt as follows: A. Portable, handheld, and vehicular transmissions. B . Industrial, scientific, and medical equipment, operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC. C. A source of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) with an effective radiated power of seven watts or less. D . A sole -source emitter with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes. E. Marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys. F. Goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. STAFFRPT.030 6 . APPROVAL STANDARDS: this section addresses new transmission facilities, whether it be additional antennas on existing towers, or new towers and antennas. Siting, setbacks, shared towers, heights, landscaping, and other issues are addressed as follows: A . Siting policies are concerned with the sharing of existing tower facilities before allowing a new tower to be approved and erected. The shared -use concept maximizes existing towers. For La Quinta, there is only one existing tower, the 110-foot tall tower at the III) complex on 58th Avenue. As the City receives future applications for new towers, the applicant must demonstrate that an existing tower is not available to the applicant before a new tower could be approved by the City. Both structural capacity and frequency capacity must be assessed by the applicant to justify the need for a new tower. Arrangements for tower sharing must be made between the tower owner and the applicant. The City will not get involved with these arrangements other than requiring a letter from the tower owner stating that an agreement has been reached. B . Any new commercial towers must observe certain setback requirements in case of a tower failure, to protect the public from excessive NIER, and preserve the privacy and safety of adjoining residential property. The tower base must be setback from abutting residential parcels or public property or streets by a distance of 20 percent (20%) of the tower height or the distance between the tower base on guy wire anchors, whichever is greater, and from abutting land in other zones by the rear yard setback required in that zone. Guy wire anchors are to be set back 25 feet from abutting residential property or public property or streets, or the rear yard setback from abutting land with zoning designations other than residential. Towers must also be set far enough from each other so that one tower will not strike another tower in case of a tower failure. C. Concerning the issue of height requirements, the ordinance indicates that commercial towers shall have the least practicable adverse visual effect on the environment. There are five height standards a tower must comply with, depending on height and proximity to airports. Towers within certain radii of an airport and over 150-feet in height must comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), State Aeronautics, and County Aviation Painting and Lighting Standards. Towers will be allowed only the maximum height necessary to operate transmitting and receiving equipment. Any tower over 150-feet tall must be supported with guy anchors unless the City determines that a guyed tower has a greater negative visual impact. Although neither Thermal Airport or Bermuda Dunes Airport are within the current City limits or the City's Sphere of Influence, it is prudent to include these height standards in the event that one of these airports becomes annexed into the City' Sphere. 7. APPLICATION CONTENTS FOR A NEW TRANSMISSION TOWER: t h i s section lists those items and documents required to be submitted to the City with an application for a new transmission facility. STAFFRPT.030 8. NONIONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (VIER) STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES: this section provides two kinds of standards, one based on NIER calculations and measurements for most commercial uses, and one based on tower distance from nearby habitable structures for the remaining commercial NIER sources. NIER sources are those frequencies in the lower two-thirds of the electromagnetic spectrum and include all radio, television, and microwave frequencies as well as ordinary household current and radar. NIER is distinguished from ionizing electromagnetic radiation (IER) - cosmic, atomic, and X-ray - by its lack of energy to ionize or alter the molecular structure of living tissue. Although the short- and long-term damage to humans resulting from exposure to even low levels of IER is well documented, potential health hazards associated with some NIER exposure is a subject of controversy among health scientists. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) states that measurements have shown that ground -level power densities due to microwave directional antennas are normally a thousand times or more below recommended safety limits. The FCC now uses the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) protection guides for purposes of evaluating environmental impact from the radio frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz . Data shows that the human body absorbs radio frequency energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. The most restrictive limits are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where maximum levels of 1 mW/cm2 as averaged over any six minute period of exposure, are recommended. This recommendation is based on a determination that the threshold for hazardous biological effects was approximately 4 watts per kilogram (4W/kg) . A safety factor of ten was then incorporated to arrive at the final recommended protection guidelines. The proposed ordinance amendment incorporates these protection guidelines. ANALYSIS: Staff transmitted the original ordinance amendment to 44 agencies for review and comment. Comments (Attachments 6 through 16) were received from the following: • Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) of Eastern Riverside County (Donald Doughty) • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) • City of Indio • Time Warner Cable • Southern California Gas Company • Riverside County Sheriff • State Department of Transportation • Riverside County Fire Marshal • Waste Management • City Staff A representative of the RACES group, Mr. Donald Doughty, met with staff on November 1, 1993, to discuss written comments received from Mr. Doughty about the ordinance. Mr. Doughty provided staff with position papers and legal opinions pertaining to the regulating of amateur ham radio towers and equipment. Mr. Doughty suggested that a separate ordinance be drafted to deal with the ham radio issues and that the proposed ordinance up for consideration at this time be directed STAFFRPT.030 toward commercial towers only. Staff took this recommendation and revised the ordinance to pertain only to commercial towers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) office of Engineering and Technology, conducted an engineering review and a legal review of the draft ordinance. Comments from this office were received on January 18, 1994 (Attachment 14) . All of the comments and suggestions offered by the FCC were incorporated into the ordinance revision. Attorney Holly Berland of the FCC General Council's office verbally commented, on December 29, 1993, that the ordinance did not appear to pose any legal problems, and did not suggest any changes. Staff received a letter (Attachment 11) from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) dated October 20, 1993. Their comments focused on the IEEE's interest in "the biological effects of non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation, examining and interpreting the biological effects and presenting findings in a authoritative manner". Three position papers discussing possible biological effects were attached to this letter. It is the position of the IEEE that the roles of field strength, duration of exposure, and intermittent versus continuous exposure are unknown, and that there is no consensus expressed in any of the published reports as to which factor, the electric or magnetic field, is biologically important. It will take many years for the biological sciences to determine what component of exposure, if any, is a factor in health risks. In a paper titled "Human Exposure to Microwaves and other Radio -Frequency Electromagnetic Fields" the IEEE takes the position that "there is no cause for alarm regarding the environmental levels of radio -frequency electromagnetic (RFEM) fields to which the general population is exposed." The City of Indio commented in a letter (Attachment 13) dated October 26, 1993, that the ordinance is inherently technical and commended staff for the effort. Time Warner Cable, Southern California Gas Company, the Sheriff's Department, and the State Department of Transportation did not have any significant comments (Attachments 7 to 10) . Staff prepared an Environmental assessment for the proposed ordinance (Attachment 17) . There were no significant impacts identified that could not be mitigated with appropriate measures. FURTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: During the February 22, 1994 Planning Commission meeting staff was directed to make the following changes to the proposed ordinance: 1) To restrict towers to commercial and agricultural zoned areas only. 2) To change the setback requirement to equal the height of the tower plus a safety margin of 25 feet. 3) To eliminate any references to height requirements or restrictions. 4) To shorten Section 9.218.060E (2) Approval Standards to read "All STAFFRPT.030 Federal Aviation Administration requirements". 5) To look into prohibiting towers within designated View Corridors. DISCUSSION: Staff studied the request to restrict towers to commercial and agricultural zoned properties. It was discovered that there is very little agriculturally zoned land left in the City, too little to provide potential tower sites. Commercially -zoned areas are found in the village area, the 111-Corridor, near the intersections of Jefferson and Avenues 50, 52, and 54, and along the west side of Washington Street north of Avenue 48. The village area would probably not be technically suitable due to its' proximity to the mountains. The 111-Corridor is a designated Primary Image Corridor on the General Plan. Towers would not be compatible with the aesthetic goals of the corridor. By restricting towers to agricultural and commercial zones there will not be enough locations available for tower installations. Because of this, staff recommends that the wording be left as is in Section 9.218.030 WHERE PERMITTED, which reads, "Television, radio, and microwave towers and related equipment are permitted in any zone with a conditional use permit approved pursuant to Chapter 9.172. rr The required setback for towers was revised in Section 9.218.060 APPROVAL STANDARDS B(3)b, to read as follows: b. "The tower base is set back from abutting parcels or streets by a distance equal to the height of the tower plus 25 feet. c. Guy wire anchors shall be set back twenty-five (25) feet from any property lines . " This setback requirement will provide the safest measure of protection in the event of a tower failure. There is no stated maximum tower or antenna height requirements. Height factors as they relate to various approval standards are found in the ordinance, such as Section 9.218.060E (5) which states: "Towers over 150 feet in height shall be guyed unless the City finds a guyed tower would have a greater negative effect on the visual environment. " Staff did remove a portion of section 9.218.060E(1) that discussed height and distance from air airports. The revisions made to the ordinance should reflect the changes wanted by the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION: The proposed ordinance provides a comprehensive guideline utilizing the latest safety requirements. The format used will provide staff with a step-by-step guide to reviewing applications for commercial communication towers, antennas, and related STAFFRPT.030 structures. It will also provide detailed information for applicants. No other jurisdiction in the Coachella Valley has such an ordinance, thus La Quinta will be in the forefront on issues related to the approval of communications towers. Potential health hazards are not fully understood, however, information sent to staff does not indicate any concrete hazards. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 94- recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance amendment 93-035, and adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment No. 93-270. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Council Report dated September 21, 1993 3. Minutes from Council Study Session dated September 21, 1993 4. Agency List 5. Cover Letter 6. Waste Management - transmittal dated October 1, 1993 7. State Department of Transportation - letter dated October 7, 1993 8. Southern California Gas Company - letter dated October 12, 1993 9. Riverside County Sheriff •- letter dated October 15, 1993 10. Time Warner Cable - letter dated October 13, 1993 11. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) - letter dated October 20, 1993 12. Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) - letter dated October 23, 1993 13. City of Indio - letter dated October 26, 1993 14. Federal communications Commission (FCC) - letter dated January 13, 1994 15. Building and Safety Department - transmittal received January 24, 1994 16. Fire Marshal - transmittal dated January 25, 1994 17. Environmental Assessment 93-270 STAFFRPT.030 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 9.218, STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES, TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 22nd day of February, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the addition of Chapter 9.218 to the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, said public hearing was continued to April 12, 1994; and, WHEREAS, this Text Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has conducted an updated initial study and has determined that the proposed Text Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is hereby recommended; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify recommendation for approval of said Ordinance Amendment: 1. The Ordinance Amendments to the Municipal Code are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Approval of the Amendments will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. 3. The Amendment will provide standards for approval of commercial communications towers and related structures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; RESOPC.129 1 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 93-270, indicating that the proposed Ordinance Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above described Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of April, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.129 2 EXHIBIT "A" CHAPTER 9.218 STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES Sections: 9.218.010 Purpose 9.218.020 Definitions 9.218.030 Where Permitted 9.218.040 Applicability 9.218.050 Exemption 9.218.060 Approval Standards 9.218.070 Application Contents for a New Transmission Tower 9.218.080 Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Standards and Procedures 9.218.010. PURPOSE. The purpose of the ordinance is to address the following concerns: A. To minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design, siting and vegetative screening; B. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of tower structures; C. To lessen traffic impacts on surrounding residential areas; D. To maximize use of any new transmission tower to reduce the number of towers needed: E. To limit radiation emitted by telecommunications equipment so that it will not adversely affect human health; and, F. To allow new transmission towers in urban residential areas only if a comparable site is not available outside urban residential areas. 9.218.020. DEFINITIONS. A. For the purpose of this Chapter, certain words and terms used herein are herewith defined. ORDDRFT.036 3 B. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense; words in the singular number include the plural number and words in the plural number include the singular number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. The word "may" is permissive. 1. Effective Radiated or Irradiated Power (ERP or EIRP). The power input to the antenna multiplied by the numerical power gain of the antenna relative to the dipole or isotropic radiator, respectively. 2. General Population. People who are not members of the family or employees of the owner or operator of a source of NIER or the owner or other users of the site of an NIER source. 3. Hand -Held Source. A transmitter normally operated while being held in the hands of the user. 4. Height of Antenna Above Grade or Ground. The vertical distance between the highest point of the antenna and the natural grade directly below this point. 5. Highest Calculated NIER Level. The NIER predicted to be highest with all sources of NIER operating. 6. Intermittent. A radio transmitter that normally operates randomly and for less than 15 continuous minutes. 7. Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER). The tower portion of the electromagnetic spectrum; includes household electrical current, radio, television, and microwave communications, radar, and visible light. It is insufficient to ionize living tissue, causes thermal effects, may cause nonthermal effects. 8. Portable Source. Transmitters and associates antennas that are moved from one point to another and operated at each location less than one month at a time. 9. Shared Capacity. That capacity for shared use whereby a tower can accommodate several users simultaneously. Tower height, antenna weight, design, and the effects of wind are prime determinants of capacity. 10. Sole -Source Emitter. One or more transmitters only one of which normally transmits at a given instant. 11. Source of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation. A source of NIER emitting between 100kHz and 300 GHz with an ERP or EIRP of more than one watt. ORDDRFT.036 4 12. Transmission Tower. A structure principally intended to support a source of NIER and accessory equipment related to telecommunications. 13. Vehicular Source. A transmitter regularly used in vehicles that normally move about. 9.218.030 WHERE PERMITTED. Television, radio, and microwave towers and related equipment are permitted in any zone with a conditional use permit approved pursuant to Chapter 9.172. 9.218.040. APPLICABILITY. The following antenna equipment are permitted subject to Sections 9.218.060 and 9.218.080: 1. VHF and UHF television. 2. FM radio. 3. Two-way radio. 4. Common carriers. 5. Cellular telephone. 6. Fixed-point microwave. 7. Low -power television. 8. AM radio. 9. Specialized mobile radio. A source of nonionizing radiation can be attached to an approved tower or structure in any zone if the planning director finds the source complies with Sections 9.218.040 and 9.218.080. 9.218.050. EXEMPTIONS. The following uses are exempt from this Ordinance, but may be regulated by other sections of the Municipal Code: A. Portable, handheld, and vehicular transmissions. B. Industrial, scientific, and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC. C. A source of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation with an effective radiated power of seven watts or less. D. A sole -source emitter with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes. E. Marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys. ORDDRFT.036 5 F. Goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. G. Amateur ham radios. 9.218.060. APPROVAL STANDARDS. A. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate the proposed telecommunications equipment if: 1. Planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved towers, considering existing and planned use of those towers, and existing and approved towers cannot be reinforced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. 2. Planned equipment will cause RF interference with other existing or planned equipment for that tower, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. 3. Existing or approved towers do not have space on which planned equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and at least in parity with other similar equipment in place or approved by the City. 4. Addition of the planned equipment to an existing or approved tower would result in NIER levels in excess of those permitted under Section 9.218.080. 5. Other reasons that make it impracticable to place the equipment planned by the applicant on existing and approved towers. B. Proposed towers or structures shall be set back from abutting residential parcels or public property or street sufficient to: 1. Contain all debris from a tower failure on the tower site. 2. Protect the general public from NIER in excess of that allowed in Section 9.218.080. 3. Preserve the privacy of adjoining --esidential property. The site is of sufficient size to comply with this standard in other ways if: a. Accessory structures comply with the setback standard in the underlying district. b. The tower base is set back from abutting parcels or streets by a distance equal to the height of the tower plus twenty five (25) feet. ORDDRFT.036 6 property lines. C. Guy wire anchors shall be set back twenty-five (25) feet from any • C. The proposed tower is set back from other on- and ef€-site towers and supporting structures far enough so one tower will not strike another tower or support structure if a tower or support structure fails. D. The proposed tower shall be designed structurally to accommodate the maximum number of foreseeable users. 1. The City can reduce the required shared capacity of a tower: a. If fewer or different telecommunications equipment should be accommodated based on: the number of FCC licenses foreseeable available for the area; kind of tower site or structure proposed; the number of existing and potential licensees without tower space; and space available on existing and approved towers; or b. If a tower necessary to provide for such sharing dominates and/or alters the visual character of the area adversely. 2. Generally antennas on a shared tower will be arranged as follows, except as needed to prevent electromagnetic interference or to accommodate topographic or other physical or functional constraints: a. Transmitting and receiving equipment serving similar kinds of uses shall be placed on a shared -use tower so one of the users in a group can operate roughly equal to other users in the group with similar equipment. ORDDRFT.036 b. Generally a TV tower will have two side -mounted and one top - mounted TV antenna or one top -mounted, one mounted below it, and one side -mounted. Triangular, T-shaped, or other platforms or candelabra may be used if required telecommunications equipment cannot be mounted as safely or economically without such structures. C. Microwave transmitters and receivers and FM and two-way radio antennas can be placed anywhere on a tower above surrounding obstacles. 3. The letter of intent to lease space on a tower complies with Section 9.218.070(E). E. The tower shall have the least practicable adverse visual effect on the environment. A tower complies with this standard if it complies with the following: 1. If it is painted silver or light blue above the top of surrounding trees and is painted green below treetop level or sand color if in open desert area. 2. All Federal Aviation Administration requirements. . .... 3. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA or State aeronautics division. 4. Towers shall be the minimum height needed to comply with Section 9.218.060(D), (2), (a). 5. Towers over 150 feet in height shall be guyed unless the City finds that a guyed tower would have a greater negative effect on the visual environment. 6. Towers shall not be located within designated view corridors as indicated in the General Plan. F. Traffic associated with the facility shall not adversely affect abutting streets. Vehicular access shall be limited to a collector street if the site adjoins both a collector and local street. G. At least two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for service vehicles. ORDDRFT.036 8 H. Existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable. I. Where the site abuts residential parcels or public property or street, the site perimeter shall be landscaped as follows: 1. For all towers, at least one row of evergreen shrubs such as yellow oleander, Cape Honeysuckle, or other approved plants capable of forming a continuous hedge at least five feet in height within two years of planting shall be spaced not more than five feet apart within 15 feet of the site boundary. 2. For a tower greater than 150 feet tall, at least one row of evergreen trees with tree trunk not less than 11/z inches diameter measured three feet above grade, and spaced not more than 20 feet apart and within 25 feet of the site boundary must be planted. 3. Within 25 feet of the site boundary for a tower less than 200 feet tall, and within 40 feet of the site boundary for a tower more than 200 feet tall, at least one row of evergreen trees or shrubs, at least four feet high when planted and spaced not more than 15 feet apart. 4. Vegetation, topography, walls, fences, and features other than those listed above may be used if the City finds that they: wires. a. Achieve about the same degree of screening. b. Do not affect the stability, security, or maintenance of the guy C. Are needed for surveillance and security of structures. d. Are used for continued operation of agricultural uses. J. Accessory facilities in a residential district may not include offices, long-term vehicle storage, other outdoor storage, or broadcast studios, except for emergency purposes, or other uses that are not needed to send or receive transmissions, and in no event may exceed 25 percent of the floor area used for transmission equipment and functions. K. The proposed use shall comply with the applicable policies of the General Plan. L. The proposed use shall be consistent with applicable Federal and State regulations, based on the applicant's good faith effort to provide the information required in Section 9.218.070(D). M. All tower installations shall be required to have engineering supervision during construction phases. ORDDRFT.036 9 9.218.070. APPLICATION CONTENTS FOR NEW TRANSMISSION TOWER(S) OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING TOWERS. An application for approval of a transmission tower shall include: A. A site plan or plans drawn to scale and identifying the site boundary; tower(s); guy wire anchors; existing and proposed structures; vehicular parking and access; existing vegetation to be retained, removed, or replaced; and uses, structures, and land -use and zoning designations on the site and abutting parcels. B. A plan drawn to scale showing proposed landscaping, including species type, size, spacing, and other features. C. A report from a California registered structural engineer. The report shall: 1. Describe the tower and the technical, economic, and other reasons for the tower design; 2. Demonstrate that the tower complies with the applicable structural standard; 3. Describe the capacity of the tower, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate and the basis for the calculation of capacity; 4. For- a tower- in a 'ate ' '�net, Show that the tower complies with the capacity requested under Section 9.218.060(D) (1-2) or;. 5. Demonstrate that the proposed sources of NIER will comply with Section 1:1 D. The applicant shall request the FAA, FCC and State aeronautics division to provide a written statement that the proposed tower complies with applicable regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. If each applicable agency does not provide a requested statement after the applicant makes a timely, good -faith effort to obtain it, the application will be accepted for processing. The applicant shall send any subsequently received agency statements to the Planning Director. E. For- a to et Evidence that the tower complies with Section 9.218.060(D) (1-3) and a letter of intent to lease excess space on the tower and excess land on the tower site except to the extent reduced capacity is required under Section 9.218.060(D)(1-2). 1. A letter of intent shall commit the tower owner and his or her successors in interest to: a. Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to a request, required under Sections 9.218.060(A), for information from a potential shared -use applicant; the tower owner may charge a party requesting information under Section 9.218.060(A) to pay a reasonable fee not in excess of the actual cost of preparing a response. ORDDRFT.036 10 b. Negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties; an owner generally will negotiate in the order in which requests for information are received, except an owner generally will negotiate with a party who has received an FCC license or permit before doing so with other parties. C. Allow shared use if an applicant agrees in writing to pay charges and to comply with conditions described in Section 9.218.070(E)(1)(d). d. Make no more than a reasonable charge for shared use, based on generally accepted accounting principles. The charge may include but is not limited to a prorata share of the cost of site selection, planning, project administration, land costs, site design, construction and maintenance, financing, return on equity, and depreciation, and all of the costs of adapting the tower or equipment to accommodate a shared user without causing electromagnetic interference or causing uses on the site to emit NIER in excess of levels permitted under Section 9.218.080. 2. If a new tower is approved, the applicant shall demonstrate that the letter of intent is recorded in with the Of iee e County Recorder before a building permit is issued. F. Written authorization from the owner of the site of the tower; a description of the guy wire anchors, and other features associated with the use. G. urban f-esidential aistfie*, Evidence that it complies with Section 9.218.060(A): 1. The applicant shall contact the owners of all existing or approved towers within the City of La Quinta with a top elevation like or higher than that proposed, except owners of those towers presumed unable to accommodate the proposed antenna. 2. The applicant shall provide each contacted owner with the engineer's report required under Section 9.218.070(C). 3. The applicant shall request each contacted owner to: a. Identify the site by address and legal description. b. Describe tower height and existing tower users. C. Assess whether the existing tower could accommodate the antenna to be attached to the proposed tower without causing structural instability or electromagnetic interference. d. If the antenna to be attached to the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on each existing tower, assess whether the existing tower could be structurally strengthened or whether the antennas, transmitters, and related equipment could be protected from electromagnetic interference and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower. ORDDRFT.036 11 H. Fef a towe1 in m ttfbm s d fi fial d stf et, Evidence that it a tower cannot practicably be accommodated at a particular site shall be provided as follows: 1. The applicant shall contact the owners of all existing or approved towers if the base elevation of an existing or approved tower site is about the same or higher than the base elevation of the proposed site except owners of those towers presumed unable to accommodate the proposed antenna. 2. The applicant shall request each contacted owner to: a. Identify the site by address and legal description. b. Assess whether the site could accommodate the proposed tower without changing an existing or approved tower. C. If the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on each existing tower site, assess whether the existing tower site could be changed to accommodate the proposed tower, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower site. I, . Other information as requested by the Planning Director. 9.218.080 NONIONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES. A. A new source of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) when combined with existing sources of VIER, shall not expose the general public to ambient radiation exceeding the mean squared electric or magnetic field strengths, or their equivalent plane -wave free -space power density, for the frequency ranges and durations described in Table A and Sections 9.218.080(B)-(D); provided, within 90-days after a Federal or State NIER emission or measurement standard is adopted, the Planning Director shall schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission to consider whether the standards described herein should be changed. B. Before establishing a new source of NIER or changing an existing NIER source in a way that increases the amount of radiation pattern of NIER, an applicant shall submit the following information certified by a California registered electrical engineer: 1. The name and address of the owner of the transmitter and antenna. 2. The location of the antenna, including address, geographic coordinates, height above grade. 3. The manufacturer, type and model of antenna and antenna radiation patterns to the extent available. 4. Frequency and output of transmitter and direction of transmission. ORDDRFT.036 12 radiator. 5. Power input to antenna and gain of antenna with respect to isotropic 6. Type of modulation and class of service. 7. Except for uses approved under Section 9.218.080(C), a scaled map and exhibits showing the following: TABLE A. MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE (MPE) TO NIER LEVELS FOR UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength E (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength H (A/m) Power Density (S) E-held; H-field (mw/cm) 0.003 to 0.1 614 163 (100:1,000,000)* 0.1 to 1.34 614 16.3/f (100:10,000/f )* 1.34 to 3.0 823.8/f 16.3/f (180/f :10,000/f2)* 3.0 to 30 823.8/f 16.3/f (180/f2:10,000/f2)* 30 to 100 27.5 158.3/f'.668f (0.2: 940,000/fg.336)* 100 to 300 27.5 0.0729 0.2 300 to 3000 - - f/ 1500 3000 to 15,00�0 - - f/1500 15,000 to 300,000 - - 10 Notes: f = E _ H= V/m = A/m = mw/cm2 = frequency in megahertz (MHz) electric field magnetic field volts per meter amperes per meter milliwatts per centimeter squared * These plane -wave equivalent power density values, although not appropriate for near - field conditions, are commonly used as a convenient comparison with MPEs at higher frequency and are displayed on some instruments in use. Source: IEEE C95.1-1991 a. Horizontal and radial distance from the NIER source to the nearest point on the property line, the nearest habitable space regularly occupied by people other than those residing or working on the site, and the points on the property and off the property with the highest calculated NIER levels and elevations above sea level at those points. ORDDRFT.036 13 b. Ambient NIER levels in the frequency range of the proposed source measured at the four points identified as provided in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a). C. Calculated NIER levels after establishment or change of the proposed source at the four points identified in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a). 8. If the calculated NIER level at any of those points listed in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a) is more than one-third the maximum NIER level permitted under Section 9.218.080, the proposed NIER source can be approved only subject to the conditions that the applicant measure NIER levels at those points after the source is established or changed, and that such measurements show the use complies with, or is changed to comply with, Section 9.218.080. C. A commercial, intermittent, sole -source emitter with less than one kilowatt averaged output over time may be approved without calculating or measuring NIER if the antenna for the emitter complies with the following separation standards. 1. An antenna with an effective isotropic radiated power of less than 100 watts is at least three feet from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna and the highest point of the antenna is at least 10 feet from that exterior surface. 2. An antenna with an effective isotropic radiated power between 100 and 1,000 watts is at least six feet from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna and the highest point of the antenna is at least 15 feet from the exterior surface. 3. An antenna with an effective isotropic radiated power between 1,000 and 10,000 watts is separated from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna as shown in Table "B" . ORDDRFT.036 14 TABLE B. M NIM UM SEPARATION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE FROM COMMERCIAL INTERMITTENT SOLE -SOURCE EMITTER (Effective Isotropic Radiated Power [EIRP] Between 1,000 and 10,000 Watts) Frequency (MHz) Minimum Separation from Highest Point of Antenna, in feet. Minimum Separation from Any Point of Antenna, in feet. <7 11 5 7 to 30 frequency/0.67 frequency/ 1.5 30 to 300 45 20 300 to 1,500 780/sq. rt. frequency 364/sq. rt. frequency > 1,500 20 1 10 4. An antenna with an effective isotropic radiated power between 10,000 and 30,000 watts is separated from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna as shown in Table "C". TABLE C. MINIMUM SEPARATION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE FROM COMMERCIAL INTERMITTENT SOLE -SOURCE EMITTER (Effective Irradiated Power [EIRP] Between 10,000 and 30,000 Watts) Frequency (MHz) Minimum Separation from Highest Point of Antenna, in feet. Minimum Separation from Any Point of Antenna, in feet. < 7 17.5 5 7 to 30 frequency/0.4 frequency/0.91 30 to 300 75 33 300 to 1,500 1,300/sq. rt. frequency 572/sq. rt. frequency > 1,500 34 15 D. Measurements shall be made according to commonly accepted engineering practice, using NIER measurement equipment generally recognized as accurate to measure NIER at frequencies and power levels of the proposed source and existing ambient RF sources. ANSI standard C95.3-Techniques and Instrumentation for the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Radiation at Microwave Facilities, is one acceptable method of measuring NIER. The effect of contributing sources of NIER below the lower frequency limit of a broad- band measuring instrument may be included by separate measurement of these sources. NIER levels of less than 20 microwatts/square centimeter or the minimum sensitivity of the instrument being used, whichever is less, shall be treated as zero. 1. Measurements are made at a height of 2 meters above ground or at a greater height if habitation occurs at a greater height with lesser radial distance to the source. ORDDRFT.036 15 2. Measurements shall be made when NIER levels are reasonably expected to be highest due to operating and environmental characteristics. 3. Measurements shall be accompanied by exhibits showing: a. The instruments used where calibrated within the manufacturer's suggested periodic calibration interval. b. The calibration method is used by or derived from methods used by the National Bureau of Standards. C. The accuracy of the measurements and certification that the measurements were made in accordance with commonly accepted engineering practice. ORDDRFT.036 16 y Day �. Attachment COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AGENDA CATEGORY: ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND BUSINESS SESSION: RESTRICTIONS FOR THE INSTALLATIION OF COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED CONSENT CALENDAR: STRUCTURES. STUDY SESSION: 1 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA SUMMARY: The City of La Quinta does not have any policies concerning the siting of communications equipment. At Council direction staff has prepared a draft ordinance addressing this issue. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Council authorization to route the ordinance for comment and to schedule public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Submitted by: Approved for submission to City Council: &Wt. AT5 RRY MAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER CC#4 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 SUBJECT: PROPOSED TOWER POLICIES ISSUES: At the direction of the Council, staff has researched and prepared a draft ordinance dealing with the siting and development standards for communication towers and related structures. BACKGROUND: Currently, the City of La Quinta does not have any policies or development standards to address the large communication tower applications. They are processed as a public use permit. Staff is proposing to change the application type to a conditional use permit. This would allow the Council more flexibility in conditioning the approval of such an application. The attached ordinance is based upon an ordinance adopted in Multnomah County, Oregon, which was discussed in an American Planning Association special report in which Multnomah was used as a model case study. Staff has tailored the model to La Quinta's environment and planning process. The ordinance contains eight sections which treat the consideration of towers in a comprehensive manner. Listed below are the eight sections and their contents: 1. PURPOSE: this section lists seven goals the ordinance is intended to promote: aesthetics, structural safety, traffic safety, tower sharing, health safety, land use efficiency, and conflict avoidance. 2. DEFINITIONS: this section defines terms contained in the ordinance that are not found in our local Zoning Ordinance. 3. WHERE PERMITTED: this section states that proposed towers can be located in any zone with a conditional use permit. MEMOLC.012 1 4. APPLICABILITY: this section is intended to list every type of transmission facility, and cross-references to the applicable approval standards. The approval standards are the same for most transmission facilities, but some uses are not permitted in urban residential districts, and those that are permitted there must comply with additional standards. 5. EXEMPTION: this section clarifies the equipment that is exempt from this ordinance. Six categories of equipment are exempt. They are: A. Portable, handheld, and vehicular transmissions. B. Industrial, scientific, and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC. C. A source of Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) with an effective radiated power of seven watts or less. D. A sole -source emitter with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes. E. Marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys. F. Goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. 6. APPROVAL STANDARDS; this section addresses new transmission facilities. Siting, setbacks, shared towers, heights, landscaping, and other issues are addressed as follows: A. Siting policies are concerned with the sharing of existing tower facilities before allowing a new tower structure to be approved. The shared -use concept maximizes existing towers. For La Quinta, there is only one existing tower, the 100-foot tall tower at the RD complex on Avenue 58. As the City receives applications for new towers, the applicant must demonstrate that an existing tower is not available to the applicant before a new tower could be approved by the City. Both structural capacity and radio frequency capacity must be assessed by the applicant to determine the need for a new tower. Arrangement for tower - sharing must be made between the tower owner and the applicant. The City will not get involved with these arrangements other than requiring a letter from the tower owner stating an agreement has been reached. B. Any new towers must observe certain setback requirements in case of a tower failure to protect the public from excessive NIER, and to preserve the privacy of adjoining residential property. The tower base must be setback from abutting residential parcels or public property or street by a distance of 20 percent (20%) MEMOLC.012 of the tower height or the distance between the tower base and guy wire anchors, whichever is greater, and from abutting land in other zones by the rear yard setback required in that zone. Guy wire anchors are to be setback 25 feet from abutting residential parcels or public property or street, or the rear yard setback from abutting land with other zoning designations than residential. Towers must also be setback far enough from each other so that one tower will not strike another tower in case of a tower failure. C. Concerning the issue of height requirements, the ordinance indicates that towers shall have the least practicable adverse visual effect on the environment. There are five height standards a tower must comply with, depending on height and proximity to airports. Those towers 150-feet or less that are more than 10,000- feet from a feeder airport (such as Thermal Airport or Bermuda Dunes Airport), and more than 20,000 feet from a major airport must have aesthetically minimizing coloring such as silver or light blue above the tree tops and green below tree top level. If a tower is over 150-feet in height, and is closer to an airport then it must comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), State Aeronautics, and County Aviation painting and lighting standards. Towers will be allowed only the maximum height necessary to operate transmitting and receiving equipment. Any tower over 150-feet tall must be supported with guy anchors unless the City determines that a guyed tower has a greater negative visual impact. 7. APPLICATION CONTENTS FOR A NEW TRANSMISSION TOWER: this section lists those items and documents required with an application for a new transmission facility. 8. NONIONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (NIER) STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES: this section provides two kinds of standards - one based on NIER calculations and measurements for most commercial uses, and one based on tower distance from nearby habitable structures for the remaining commercial NIER sources. NIER sources are those frequencies in the lower two-thirds of the electromagnetic spectrum and include all radio, television, and microwave frequencies as well as ordinary household current and radar. NIER is distinguished from ionizing electromagnetic radiation (IER) - cosmic, atomic, and x-ray - by its lack of energy to ionize, or alter, the molecular structure of living tissue. Although the short- and long-term damage to humans resulting from exposure to even low levels of IER is well documented, potential health hazards associated with some NIER exposure is a subject of controversy among health scientists. MEMOLC.012 Neighboring Jurisdictions' Policies The City of Indio's ordinance is minimal in its treatment of towers and antennas and is as follows: "Radio, television, and microwave stations may be permitted by conditional use permit in all residential zones and by design review approval in C & M Zones." Riverside County does not have a specific ordinance dealing with towers. However, they have an extensive ordinance for wind energy turbines. In addition, the County has alternative procedures for projects exceeding height limitations. These procedures require that public hearing notices include the height of the towers, turbines, or whatever structure is applied for. Section 15.2 of the County W-2 Zone addresses tower heights as follows: "One family residences shall not exceed 40-feet in height. No other building or structure shall exceed 50-feet in height, unless a height up to 75-feet for buildings, 105-feet for other structures, or greater than 105-feet for broadcasting antennas is approved pursuant to Section 18.34 of this ordinance." Section 18.34 of the County Ordinance is as follows: "Section 18.34. STRUCTURE HEIGHT. When any zoning classification provides that an application for a greater height limit may be made pursuant to this section, the following alternative procedures may be used to determine if the request shall be granted: 1. An application for a zone change may request a greater height limit in accordance with the limitations of the zoning classification. The specific height limit requested shall be included in all notices regarding the zone change and, if granted, the zoning placed upon the land shall specifically state the allowed height limit. 2. An application for a conditional use permit, public use permit, commercial Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) permit or accessory WECS permit may include a request for a greater height limit in accordance with the limitations of the zoning classification. The specific height limit requested shall be included in all notices regarding the permit, and if granted the permit shall specifically state the allowed height limit. MEMOLC.012 4 3. For structures other than buildings, an application for a greater height limit in accordance with the limitations of the zoning classification may be made to the Planning Director to the provisions of Section 18.30 of this ordinance. If granted, the approved plot plan shall specifically state the allowed height limit. The City of Indian Wells does not have any policies dealing with the towers, beyond satellite dishes, ham radio antennas, and television antennas. The height limitations for antennas is 65- feet above grade in single family residential zoned areas or 30-feet above the height limitation allowed if located in a multi -family residential or commercially zoned area. CONCLUSION: The draft ordinance provides a comprehensive guideline for the City to follow. Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be set for public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council for review and final action. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests Council authorization to route the draft ordinance for comment and to schedule public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Attachments: 1. Draft ordinance. MEMOLC.012 5 CHAPTER 9.218 TELEVISION, RADIO, AND MICROWAVE TOWER AND TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT SrMG Sections: 9.218.010 Purpose 9.218.020 Definitions 9.218.030 Where Permitted 9.218.040 Applicability 9.218.050 Exemption 9.218.060 Approval Standards 9.218.070 Application Contents for a New Transmission Tower 9.218.080 Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Standards and Procedures 9.218.010. F-IMP- SE. The purpose of the ordinance is to address the following concerns: A. To minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design, siting and vegetative screening; B. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of tower structures; C. To lessen traffic impacts on surrounding residential areas; D. To maximize use of any new transmission tower to reduce the number of towers needed: E. To limit radiation emitted by telecommunications equipment so that it will not adversely affect human health; and, F. To allow new transmission towers in urban residential areas only if a comparable site is not available outside urban residential areas. 9.218.020. DEFINITIONS. A. For the purpose of this Chapter, certain words and terms used herein are herewith defined. ORDDRFT.036 2 B. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense; words in the singular number include the plural number and words in the plural number include the singular number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. The word "may" is permissive. (Ord. 511(part), 1982: County Ordinance 348 Art. 21 (part). - 1. Effective Radiated or Irradiated Power (ERP or E M. The power input to the antenna multiplied by the numerical power gain of the antenna relative to the dipole or isotropic radiator, respectively. 2. General Population. People who are not members of the family or employees of the owner or operator of a source of NIER or the owner or other users of the site of an NIER source. 3. Hand -Held Source. A transmitter normally operated while being held in the hands of the user. 4. Height of Antenna Above Grade or Ground. The vertical distance between the highest point of the antenna and the natural grade directly below this point. 5. Highest Calculated NIER Level. The VIER predicted to be highest with all sources of NIER operating. 6. Intermittent. A radio. transmitter that normally operates randomly and for less than 15 continuous minutes. 7. Portable Source. Transmitters and associates antennas that are moved from one point to another and operated at each location less than one month at a time. S. Sole -Source Emitter. One or more transmitters only one of which normally transmits at a given instant. 9. Source of Nonionizing_ Electromagnetic Radiation. A source of NIER emitting between 100kHz and 300 GHz with an ERP or EIRP of more than one watt. 10. Transmission Tower. A structure principally intended to support a source of NIER and accessory equipment related to telecommunications. 11. Vehicular Source. A transmitter regularly used in vehicles that normally move about. 9.218.030 WHERE PERMITTED. Television, radio, and microwave towers and related equipment are permitted in any zone with a conditional use permit approved pursuant to Chapter 9.172. ORDDRF2.036 3 9.218.040. APPLICABLIM. The following are permitted subject to Sections 9.218.060 and 9.218.080: 1. VHF and UFH television. 2. FM radio. 3. Two-way radio. 4. Common carriers. 5. Cellular telephone. 6. Fixed-point microwave. 7. Low -power television. 8. AM radio. An antenna and supporting structure for the following uses are permitted in any district if accessory to a permitted use and if they comply with applicable regulations of the district in which situated: 1. Ham radio. 2. Citizens band radio. 3. A telecommunication device that only receives an RF signal. 4. A sole -source emitter with more than one kilowatt average output. A source of nonionizing radiation can be attached to an approved tower or structure in any district if the planning director finds the source complies with Sections 9.218.040 and 9.218.080. 9.218.050. EXEMPTIONS. The following uses are exempt from this Ordinance: A. Portable, handheld, and vehicular transmissions. B. Industrial, scientific, and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC. C. A source of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation with an effective radiated power of seven watts or less. D. A sole -source emitter with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes. E. Marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys. F. Goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. 9.218.060. APPROVAL STANDARDS. ORDDRFT.036 4 if: A. Existing or approved towers cannot accommodate telecommunications equipment 1. Planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved towers, considering existing and planned use of those towers, and existing and approved towers cannot be reinforced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. 2. Planned equipment will cause RF interference with other existing or planned equipment for that tower, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. 3. Existing or approved towers do not have space on which planned equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and at least in parity with other similar equipment in place or approved by the City. 4. Addition of the planned equipment to an existing or approved tower would result in VIER levels in excess of those permitted under Section 9.218.080. S. Other reasons that make it impracticable to place the equipment planned by the applicant on existing and approved towers. B. Proposed towers or structures will be set back from abutting residential parcels or public property or street sufficient to: 1. Contain on -site substantially all debris from tower failure. 2. Protect the general public from VIER in excess of that allowed in Section 9.218.080. 3. Preserve the privacy of adjoining residential property. The site is of sufficient size to comply with this standard in other ways if: a. Accessory structures comply with the setback standard in the underlying district. b. The tower base is set back: 1.) From abutting residential parcels or public property or street by a distance of 20 percent (20%) of the tower height or the distance between the tower base and guy wire anchors, whichever is greater. 2.) From abutting land in other districts by the rear yard setback required in that district. ORDDRFT.036 5 9 C. Guy wire anchors are set back: public property or street. 1.) , Twenty-five (25) feet from abutting residential parcels or 2. The rear yard setback from abutting land in other districts. C. The proposed tower is set back from other on- and off site towers and supporting structures far enough so one tower will not strike another tower or support structure if a tower or support structure fails. D. The proposed tower shall be designed structurally to accommodate the maximum number of foreseeable users. 1. The City can reduce the required shard capacity of a tower: a. If fewer or different telecommunications equipment should be accommodated based on: the number of FCC licenses foreseeable available for the area; kind of tower site or structure proposed; the number of existing and potential licensees without tower .space; and space available on existing and approved towers; or b. If a tower necessary to provide for such sharing dominates and alters the visual character of the area adversely. 2. Generally antennas on a shared tower will be arranged as follows, except as needed to prevent electromagnetic interference or to accommodate topographic or other physical or functional constraints: a. Transmitting and receiving equipment serving similar kinds of uses shall be placed on a shared -use tower so one of the users in a group can operate roughly equal to other users in the group with similar equipment. b. Generally a TV tower will have two side -mounted and one top - mounted TV antenna or one top -mounted, one mounted below it, and one side -mounted. Triangular, T-shaped, or other platforms or candelabra may be used if required telecommunications equipment cannot be mounted as safely or economically without such structures. C. Microwave transmitters and receivers and FM and two-way radio antennas can be placed anywhere on a tower above surrounding obstacles. IThe letter of intent to lease space on a tower complies with Section 9.218.070(�. ORDDRFT.036 6 E. The tower shall have the least practicable adverse visual effect on the environment. A tower complies with this standard if it complies with the following: 1. If the tower if 15 feet or less in height, more than 10,000 feet from a feeder airport, and more than 20,00blect from a major airport and has a galvanized finish or is painted silver or light blue above the top of surrounding trees and is painted green below treetop level. 2. If the tower is over 150 feet in height, less than 10,000 feet from a feeder airport, or less than 20,000 feet from a major airport, it shall comply with FAA and State Aeronautics division painting and lighting standards. 3. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA or State aeronautics division. 4. Towers shall be the minimum height needed to comply with Section 9.218.060(D), (2), (a). 5. Towers over 150 feet in height shall be guyed unless the approval authority finds a guyed tower would not have a lesser negative visual effect. F. Traffic associated with the facility shall not adversely affect abutting streets. Vehicular access shall be limited to a collector street if the site adjoins both a collector and local street. G. At least two *off-street parking spaces shall be provided for service vehicles. H. Existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable. I. Where the site abuts residential parcels or public property or street, the site perimeter shall be landscaped as follows: 1. For all towers, at least one row of evergreen shrubs such as yellow oleander, Cape Honeysuckle, or other approved plants capable of forming a continuous hedge at least five feet in height within two years of planting shall be spaced not more than five feet apart within 15 feet of the site boundary. 2. For a tower greater than 150 feet tall, at least one row of evergreen trees with tree trunk not less than I1h inches diameter measured three feet above grade, and spaced not more than 20 feet apart and within 25 feet of the site boundary. 3. Within 25 feet of the site boundary for a tower less than 200 feet tall, and within 40 feet of the site boundary for a tower more than 200 feet tall, at least one row of evergreen trees or shrubs, at least four feet high when planted and spaced not more than 15 feet apart. ORDDRFT.036 7 4. Vegetation, topography, walls, fences, and features other than those listed above may be used if the City finds that they: a. Achieve about the same degree of screening. b. Do not affect the stability, security, or maintenance of the guy C. Are needed for surveillance and security of structures. d. Are used for continued operation of agricultural uses. J. Accessory facilities in a residential district may not include offices, long-term vehicle storage, other outdoor storage, or broadcast studios, except for emergency purposes, or other uses that are not needed to send or receive transmissions, and in no event may exceed 25 percent of the floor area used for transmission equipment and functions. K. The proposed use shall comply with the applicable policies of the General Plan. L. The proposed use shall be consistent with applicable Federal and State regulations, based on the applicant's good faith effort to provide the information required in Section 9.218.070(D), 9.9218.070. APPLICATION CONTENTS FOR A NEW 4R ADDITIONS_ TO TRANSMISSION TOWER(S). An application for approval of a transmission tower shall include: A. A site plan or plans drawn to scale and identifying the site boundary; tower(s); guy wire anchors; existing and proposed structures; vehicular parking and access; existing vegetation to be retained, removed, or replaced; and uses, structures, and land -use designations on the site and abutting parcels. B. A plan drawn to scale showing proposed landscaping, including species type, size, spacing, and other features. C. A report from a California registered engineer. The report shall: 1. Describe the tower and the technical, economic, and other reasons for the tower design; 2. Demonstrate that the tower complies with the applicable structural standard; 3. Describe the capacity of the tower, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate and the basis for the calculation of capacity; ORDDRFT.036 8 4. For a tower in a residential district, show that the tower complies with the capacity requested under Section 9.218.060(D) (1-2) or;. S. Demonstrate that the proposed sources of NIER will comply with Section 9.218.080. D. The applicant shall request the FAA, FCC and State aeronautics dnrrsion to provide a written statement that the proposed tower complies with applicable regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. N each applicable agency does not provide a requested statement after the applicant makes a timely, good -faith effort to obtain it, the application will be accepted for processing. The applicant shall send a subsequently received agency statement to the Planning Director. E. For a tower in a residential district, evidence that the tower complies with Section 9.218.060(D) (1-3) and a letter of intent to lease excess space on the tower and excess land on the tower site except to the extent reduced capacity is requested under Section 9.218.060(D)(1- 2). 1. A letter of intent shall commit the tower owner and his or her xx=ssors in interest to: a. Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to a request, required under Sections 9.218.060(A), for information from a potential shared -use applicant; the tower owner may charge a party requesting information under Section 9.218.060(A) to pay a reasonable fee not in excess of the actual cost of preparing a response. b. Negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties; an owner generally will negotiate in the order in which requests for information are received, except an owner generally will negotiate with a party who has received an FCC license or permit before doing so with other pasties. C. Allow shared use if an applicant agrees in writing to pay charges and to comply with conditions described in Section 9.218.070(E)(1)(d). d. Make no more than a reasonable charge for shared use, based on generally accepted accounting principles. The charge may include but is not limited to a prorata share of the cost of site selection, planning, project administration, land costs, site design, construction and maintenance, financing, return on equity, and depreciation, and all of the costs of adapting the tower or equipment to accommodate a shared user without causing electromagnetic interference or causing uses on the site to emit NIER in excess of levels permitted under Section 9.218.080. 2. If a new tower is approved, the applicant shall demonstrate that the letter of intent is recorded in the Office of County Records before a building permit is issued. oRDDRFT.036 9 F. Written authorization from the owner of the site of the tower; a description of the guy wire anchors, and other features associates with the use. G. For a tower in an urban residential district, evidence that it complies with Section 9.218.060(A): 1. The applicant shall contact the owners of all existing or approved towers within the City of La Quinta with a top elevation like or higher than that proposed, except owners of those towers presumed unable to accommodate the proposed antenna. 2. The applicant shall provide each contacted owner with the engineer's report required under Section 9.218.070(C). 3. The applicant shall request each contacted owner to: a. Identify the site by address and legal description. b. Describe tower height and existing tower users. C. Assess whether the existing tower could accommodate the antenna to be attached to the proposed tower without causing structural instability or electromagnetic interference. d. If the antenna to be attached to the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on each existing tower, assess whether the existing tower could be structurally strengthened or whether the antennas, transmitters, and related equipment could be protected from electromagnetic interference and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower. H. For a tower in an urban residential district, evidence that it cannot practicably be accommodated at a particular site shall be provided as follows: 1. The applicant shall contact the owners of the site of all existing or approved towers if the base elevation of an existing or approved tower site is about the same or higher than the base elevation of the proposed site except owners of those towers presumed unable to accommodate the proposed antenna. 2. The applicant shall request each contacted owner to: a. Identify the site by address and legal description. b. Assess whether the site could accommodate the proposed tower without changing an existing or approved tower. ORDDRFT.036 10 r L R C. If the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on each existing tower site, assess whether the existing tower site could be changed to accommodate the proposed tower, and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower site. applicableI. Responses to other .. . PEXEDURES. A. A source of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation (AVER) when combined with existing sources of N1ER, shall not expose the general public to ambient radiation exceeding the mean squared electric or magnetic field strengths, or their equivalent plane -wave free -space power density, for the frequency ranges and durations described in Table A and Sections 9.218.080(B)-(D); provided, within 90-days after a Federal or State NIER emission or measurement standard is adopted, the Planning Director shall schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission to consider whether the standards described herein should be changed. B. Before establishing a new source of NIER or changing an existing NIER source in a way that increases the amount of radiation pattern of NIER, an applicant shall submit the following information certified by a California registered electrical engineer. 1. The name and address of the owner of the transmitter and antenna. 2. The location of the antenna, including address, geographic coordinates, height above grade. 3. The manufacturer, type and model of antenna and antenna radiation patterns to the extent available. radiator. 4. Frequency and output of transmitter and direction of transmission. S. Power input to antenna and gain of antenna with respect to isotropic 6. Type of modulation and class of service. 7. Except for uses approved under Section 9.218.080(C), a scaled map and exhibits showing the following: ORDDRFT.036 11 r 4 . TABLE A. MAXIMIIM PERMITTED AMBIENT NIER EtVIISSION LEVELS' Frequency (MHz) Mean Squared Electric Field Strength Mean Squared Magnetic Field Strengths Equivalent Plane -Wave, Power Density; .01 to 3 80,000 0.5 . 20 3 to 30 4,000 0.025 180/frequency: 30 to 300 800 0.005 0.2 300 to 1,500 4,000 0.025 frequency/1,5W 1,500 to 3,000 4,000 0.025 1.0 a. Horizontal and radial distance from the NIER source to the nearest point on the property line, the nearest habitable space regularly occupied by people other than those residing or working on the site, and the points on the property and off the property with the highest calculated NIER levels and elevations above sea level at those points. b. Ambient VIER levels in the frequency range of the proposed source measured at the four points identified as provided in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a). C. Calculated NIER levels after establishment or change of the proposed source at the four points identified in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a). 8. If the calculated NIER level at any of those points listed in Section 9.218.080(B)(7)(a) is more than one-third the maximum NIER level permitted under Section 9.218.080, the proposed NIER source can be approved only subject to the conditions that the applicant measure NIER levels at those points after the source is established or changed, and that such measurements show the use complies with, or is changed to comply with, Section 9.218.080. All standards refer to roof mean squared measurements averaged over one-half hour, for averaging times less than one-half hour, the allowed power density is half the allowed power density for one-half hour. 2 'Mean squared electric field strength measurements expressed in volts squared per meter squared. ' Magnetic field strength measurements expressed in amperes squared per meter squared. ' Equivalent plane -wave power density measurements expressed in microwatts per centimeter squared. ORDDRFT.036 12 C. A commercial, intermittent, sole -source emitter with less than one kilowatt average output may be approved without calculating or measuring N ER if the antenna for the emitter complies with the following separation standards. 1. An antenna with an effective radiated power of less than 100 watts is at least three feet from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna and the highest point of the antenna is at least 10 feet from that exterior surface. 2. An antenna with an effective radiated power between 100 and 1,000 watts is at least six feet from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna and the highest point of the antenna is at least 15 feet from the exterior surface. 3. An antenna with an effective radiated power between 1,000 and 10,000 watts is separated from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna as shown in Table 'B'. TABLE B. MIlMMUM SEPARATION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE FROM COMMERCIAL INT RWITENT SOLE -SOURCE ElVIIT M (Effective Irradiated Power [EIRP] Between 1,000 and 10,000 Watts) Frequency (MHz) Minimum Separation from Highest Point of Antenna, in feet. Minimum Separation from Any Point of Antenna, in feet. <7 11 5 7 to 30 frequency/0.67 frequency/1.5 30 to 300 45 20 300 to 1,500 780/sq. rt. frequency 364/sq. rt. frequency > 1,500 20 10 4. An antenna with an effective radiated power between 10,000 and 30,000 watts is separated from the exterior of a habitable structure other than a structure on the site of the antenna as shown in Table 'C". ORDDRFT.036 13 TABLE C. MWIMUM SEPARATION OF HABITABLE STRUCTURE FROM CONIl MCIAL SOLE -SOURCE EMITTER (Effective Irradiated Power jEIRP] Between 10,000 and 30,000 Watts) Frequency (MHz) Minimum Separation from Highest Point of Antenna, in feet. Minimum Separation from Any Point of Antenna, in feet. <7 17.5 5 7 to 30 frequency/0.4 frequency/0.91 30 to 300 75 33 300 to 1,500 1,300/sq. rt. frequency 572/sq. rt. frequency > 1,500 1 34 15 D. Measurements shall be made according to commonly accepted engineering practice, using NIER measurement equipment generally recognized as accurate to measure NIER at frequencies and power levels of the proposed source and existing ambient RF sources. ANSI standard C;95.3, Techniques and Instrumentation for the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Radiation at Microwave Facilities, is one acceptable method of measuring NIER. The effect of contributing sources of NIER below the lower frequency limit of a broad- band measuring instrument may be included by separate measurement of these sources. NIER levels of less than 20 microwatts/square centimeter or the minimum sensitivity of the instrument being used, whichever is less, shall be treated as zero. 1. Measurements are made at a height of 1.5 meters above ground or at a greater height if habitation occurs at a greater height with lesser radial distance to the source. 2. Measurements shall be made when NIER levels are reasonably expected to be highest due to operating and environmental characteristics. 3. Measurements shall be accompanied by exhibits showing: a. The instruments used where calibrated within the manufacturer's suggested periodic calibration interval. b. The calibration method is used by or deprived from methods used by the National Bureau of Standards. C. The accuracy of the measurements and certification that the measurements were made in accordance with commonly accepted engineering practice. ORDDRFT.036 14 Attachment 3 City Council Minutes 13 September 21, 1993 7. ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT OF EASEMENT DEED FOR RIGHT-OY�,WAY PARCEL LOCATED IN DESERT CLUB DRIVE ALIG NT - DODCO/FEATHERINGILL. 8. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN TENTA�TRACT 23971 - LA QUINTA DEL ORO, UNITED SAVINGS BANK. 9. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR W HINGTON STREET BRIDGE PROJECT. 10. APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATE MEM AGREEMENT WITH UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHE CALIFORNIA. 11. APPROVAL OF OVE HT TRAVEL FOR MAYOR PENA AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCART TO ATTEND THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFE NCE IN SAN FRANCISCO OCTOBER 16-19, 1993. MOTION - was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bangerter to approve the Consent Calendar recommended with Item No. 2 being adopted by RESOLUTION NO.93-73 and m No. 3 being adopted by RESOLUTION NO. 93-74. Motion carried u ously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 93-189. STUDY SESSION 1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES. Mrs. Mouriquand-Cherry, Associate Planner, advised that as directed by Council, a draft ordinance was prepared pertaining to the siting of communications towers structures and accessory equipment. The draft ordinance was modeled after a case study in Multnomah County, Oregon. Staff requested Council's authorization to route the ordinance for review and comment to outside agencies and schedule for public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. In response to Council Member McCartney, Mrs. Mouriquand-Cherry advised that the tower height of 150 feet was based on the model ordinance from Oregon. Council concurred in leaving the tower height as an open issue until there has been further study within the Coachella Valley. Mayor Pena believed that their are conflicts dealing with ham radios, citizens band radios regarding set -backs. City Council Minutes 14 September 21, 1993. Mr. Herman, Planning Director, advised that staff will research it further. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mrs. Mouriquand-Cherry advised that the industry has not been contacted for comment. Council directed staff to route the draft ordinance to the various agencies for their input. 2. DISCUSSION OF ON -STREET AND OFF-STREET PARKING ALTERNA' IN VICINITY OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS/CALLE TAMPICO INTER.SEC Mr. Speer, Ass't City Engineer, advised that/ately ner of Ace Hardware ha equested the City to consider the possibility of allowing parking on the west s' of Avenida Bermudas near the hardware store. Staff has ed two angel park' alternatives in response to the request. which he proceeded iew with the C ncil. Additionally, a third alternative regarding parking near the are store is w possible as a result of the recent realignment of Calle Tampico. Theortherly r ovation of Calle Tampico created a vacant area of excess right of way thpprox' ately 185' long by 70' wide. Currently, there is sufficient space for five paon- reet parking spaces on the west side of Avenida Bermudas. Alternative A pnine angel spaces; Alternative B provides seven angle spaces; and Alternative Cides twenty-six off-street spaces plus several additional on -street spaces on both Bes and Tampico. Council Member Stiff was concerned out angle parking because of backing out on to on -coming traffic and commented t the preferred Exhibit C because it was the safest, provided for a greater number f parking spaces, and would give definition to the downtown parking area. Council Member Perkins ommented that he is oppose to angle parking and that Exhibit C is an excellent .plan, oting that it fits in with the ultimate goal of the Village. Mayor Pena conc ed that Exhibit C is the best plan. Mr. Speer st d that staff will submit a proposal for. the installation of a parking lot at that locatioryand further research the ownership rights to that land. Mayor j'ena suggested reviewing this plan with the businesses in that area. concurred for staff to research this further and report back. Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, expressed her delight in the direction Council was taking and asked that there be an exit on Navarro. Attachment AGENCIES TO CONTACT REGARDING PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES KMIR TV 72-920 Parkview Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 KECY TV 32-090 Rancho Vista Drive Cathedral City, CA 92234 CABLEVISION 329-6436 11-855 Palm Drive Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 COLONY CABLEVISION 41-725 Cook Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 v/ WARNER CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 1050 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 L.A. CELLULAR 340-6364 73-608 Highway I I I Palm Desert, CA 92260 KESQ TV 42-650 Melanie Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 KVER TV 41-701 Corporate Way Palm Desert, CA 92260 MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRONICS 83-535 Peach Indio, CA 92201 DOCLC.010 1 V/ ROBERT F. CLEVELAND Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering Technology 1919 "M" Street, N.W. Mail Stop 1300A2 Washington, D.C. 20554 DOUGLAS M. LONG, Manager California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3298 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION EDA/Aviation Division French Valley Airport Aviation Center 37-552 Winchester Road Box 1,2&3 Murrieta, CA 92563 LARRY LEVINE PACTEL Cellular P. O. Box 19707 Irvine, CA 92713 SPRINGS AMBULANCE SERVICE 560 Williams Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 FBI 559 Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE Border Patrol 45-620 Commerce Indio, CA 92201 SECRET SERVICE 255 E. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 900 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 63-500 Garnet Avenue North Palm Springs, CA 922 DOCLC.010 3 KBEST & KUNA Radio Station 41-945 Boardwalk Palm Desert, CA 92260 KWXY Radio Station 68-700 Dinah Shore Drive Cathedral City, CA 92234 KCMJ Radio Station 490 S. Farrell Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 KCLB & KCLV Radio Station 1694 Sixth Street Coachella, CA 92236 KDES Radio Station 821 N. Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 KEZN Radio Station 72-915 Parkview Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 KPLM Radio Station 441 S. Calle Encilia Palm Springs, CA 92262 KPSI Radio Station 2100 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 JERRY L. ULCEK, Electronics Engineer Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology Spectrum Engineering Division 2025 "M" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 ✓ IEEE UNITED STATES ACTIVITIES BOARD 1828 "L" Street, N.W., #1202 Washington, D.C. 20036-5104 DOCLC.010 2 El RADIO AMATEUR CIVIL EMERGENCY SERVICE Mr. Bret Romer 73-401 Broken Arrow Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 V/ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY SUNLINE TRANSIT COMPANY ✓ CALTRANS (DISTRICT 11) CITY OF INDIO CITY OF INDIAN WELLS `/ RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF COACHELLA �e / ve DOCLC.010 4 Attachmer T4'it 4 4a " .1 79 495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 September 30, 1993 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035, STANDARDS FOR COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES Dear Sir/Madame: The City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department has drafted the attached proposed City Ordinance addressing the locating and development of communication towers and related structures. Your review and comments are requested on the ordinance. In addition, an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed ordinance is being conducted by City Staff. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the ordinance presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recommended measures: a) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the ordinance; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible. Please send your response by October 29, 1993. If you have any questions concerning this letter or the proposed ordinance please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LESLIE MOURIQUAND-CHERRY ASSOCIATE PLANNER LC: ces s� 1 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 4M LTRLC . 025 Attachment 4 DATE: _; e n i � 9 _ 1 � C{ ' . u�KQ,rCt� ---T 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION ,City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Works Director City Engineer Building i Safety Parks 6 Recreation Fire Marshal Chamber of Commerce Imperial Irrigatior. Dist. Southern California Gas Desert Sands School Dist. CV Unified School Dist. CV Water District Ser A-4ar-,mod Lst- paste Manag4 t %Principal US os ery ce Planner General Telephone ,Associate rcsaltrans olony Cable Planner unline Transit Associate (District II) Planner Agricultural Commission V,Planning CV Archaeological Soc. Director SIA - Desert Council City of Indio/Indian wells CV Mount. Conservacy CV Recreation 6 Parks Riverside County: Sheri ff-s Department Planning Department _XEnvironmental Health LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): ZOA `++I 3--Oat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 5`janAa rcis 0C, 05 A r, ul, PROJECT LOCATION: C%1 -Lt9% A Q The City of La Quint& Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the.project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by 0C,-6 U.?!' aei.I Qa?. You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting art La Quinta City Hall: Date: :MA Contact Person: Comments made by: Time: pleg nv%owni :l riV s1� xh "o i n Ytl 2 P— .._ _ mi.�s.L1atA' �V� •► Tarn. Dl.n..n. anonry rr1; IF i c { nn STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPO ION AND HOUSING AGENCY Attachmen PETE WILSU Q-v:, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO, 92186-5406 r(619) 688-6424 MD Number 19) 688-6002 October 7, 1993 Ms. Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 OCT 12 CITY OF LA OUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT We have reviewed the following project, and have no comment at this time: Project Type: cc: BDillon T/P File 20A 930935 Standards for Communication Towers BILL DILLON, Chief Planning Studies Branch The Gas Comp /- Attachment F ILICity of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Leslie Mouriquano-Cherry Re: Communications Towers and Related Structures October 12, 1993 Pis O C T 15 1993 Souther Califoi vnww•m.s< •� r CITY G;; LA C4 , -A Gas Co any Rrdl,nd. CAThank you for the opportunity to respond to the above referenced item. Please note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above 11a/trnti Idd.r, named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided from Hux Mlli various location without any significant impact on the environment. The service Krdland,. (A would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file 91f7f-U1Uh with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. I We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Builder Services Manager, P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373-0306. Sincerely, L. W. Toomoth Technical Supervisor LWT/blho Attachment 9 LVERSIDE COUNTY I'S BYRD, SHERIFF October 15, 1993 Sher iff 82-695 DR. CARREON BLVD. 9 INDIO, CA 92201 Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry Associate Planner City of La Quinta Planning & Development Division 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA 92253 RE: 20A 93-035 • (619) 9i�g99g. f(,3--g9%0 p Ate; Dear Ms. Mouriquand: The Sheriffs Department sees no problem with this r Sincerely, project. COIS BYRD, SHERIFF Ronald F. Dye, Captain Indio Station Commander CB: RD:gt Attachmen, T I M E W A R N E R C A B L E rOCT 18 r r October 13, 1993 Associate Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Your Letter of September 30, 1993 Attention: Ms. Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry I appreciate the City of La Quinta thinking of us during your Zoning Ordinance Amendment; however, we do not conduct any business within the City of La Quinta. In consequence, this amendment would have no influence on our business operations. If you have any other questions or need further information, please don't hesitate to contact me at 320-1595. Regards, Maynard E. Jary nen Technical Operations Manager MEJ/j ItarnvrCable 11150 NnrtIt hilnt (.umnn I'ului �pririg, (.1 92202 741,19-01.10111) f.t% nl'r ,;:'1 Attachmen IEEE UNITED STATES ACTIVITIES Promoting Career and Technology Policy Interests of Electrical, Electronics & Computer Engines United States Activities Board October 20, 1993 DffCT �`;' ' Technology Policy Council ! f Aerospace R&D Policy Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry �y' Communications & Associate Planner r Information Policy City of La Quinta DefensEnergy R&D licy y 78-495 Calle Tampico CITY OF LA GUNT.A Energy Policy PLANNIK 0"PARTt E47 Engineering R&D Policy La Qu int a, CA 92253 Health Care Engineering Policy eernre.n ar_ r� s.r Man & Radiation Dear Ms. Mouriquand-Cherry, Government Activities Council Congressional Fellows This is in response to your request for comments in Washington Internship for Students of Engineering your letter dated, September 30, 1993, SUBJECT: Legislative Report Request for Review of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93- Na'ionalGovernment Activities 035, Standards for Communication Towers and Related State Government Activities Structures. We appreciate the opportunity to respond Technology Policy Conference U.S. Competitiveness to your request. Member Activities Council IEEE -USA's Committee on Man and Radiation's (COMAR ) Awards & Recognition Communications primary area of interest is the biological effects of Employment Assistance non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation, examining and IMPACT interpreting the biological effects and presenting Opinion Survey Precollege Education findings in an authoritative manner. Your request is Private Practitioners Task Force consistent with the solicitations we have received from Professional Perspective other municipalities. Salary Survey Professional Activities Council I am forwarding for your information three position for Engineers (PACE) statements that discuss the issue stated in part E. , National Engineers Week Section 9.218.010, of the ordinance draft. The three PACE Regional & Divisional Activities PACE Information/Workshop position statements are 1) Biological Effects of Power - Student Professional Awareness Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, 2) Human Career Activities Council Exposure to Microwaves and Other Radio -Frequency Anti -Discrimination Electromagnetic Fields, and 3) Human Exposure to Career Maintenance & Development Radiofrequency Fields From Portable and Mobile Emits Telephones and Other Communications Devices. These may Intellectual Property Ucensure & Registration prove helpful to you in further proceedings on the Manpower proposed ordinance. Pensions I would also like to offer the assistance of members of COMAR, Pat Polson, and John Osepchuk, Chairman of IEEE -USA Office COMAR, for personal assistance should the need arise: (202)785.0017 "Information Line" Recording (202) 785.2180 Dr. Peter Polson Dr. John Osepchuk FAX 18985 Tuggle Avenue Raytheon Research Division (202)785-0835 Cupertino, CA 95014 131 Spring Street (408) 257-3376 Lexington, MA 02173 (617) 860-3041 IEEE -USA, 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1202, Washington, DC 20036-5104 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Again, I appreciate the opportunity this matter. Please do not hesitate I may be of further assistance. nc y, Ste h E. rey Technology licy Council IEEE -USA cc J. Osepchuk T. Suttle B. Wangemann encl to be of assistance to you in to contact me if you believe Attachment 1; RadioAmateurCivilEmergencyService Eastern Riverside County 10/23/93 Jerry Herman Panning & Development Director City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman, Brett Romer, N6NLN 73-401 Broken Arrow Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 Home: (619)346-9291 Work: (619)776-7408 Pager: (619)773-8227 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your proposed zoning ordinance, amendment 93-035. I have asked Dr. Don Doughty, W6EEN, P.E., to review the material and respond with his suggestions. His thoughts and suggestions are attached. Yours truly, Brett Romer Emergency Coordinator, Coachella Valley Deputy Chief RACES Officer, Eastern Riverside County OCT 2 5 W3 CITY OF to QUI414 . IANylNG WAR` t •' '+' V� 6 E N DONALD L. DOUGHTY 42-605 BYRON PL BERMUDA DUNES. CA 9=1 October 21, 1993 To: Brett Romer, NBNLN From: Don Doughty, WQ53N, P.E Re: PROPOSED City of La Quanta rdinance Amendment 93-935. This is a cursory review and I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the drafting agency to review these issues. 1. This amendment definitely applies to Amateur Radio Antennas. That they are "permitted" is confusing inasmuch as the question of "subject to" is not addressed. 2. There is an Amateur exemption for running I kw or less. No mention of whether this is PEP or RMS average, or how this reconciles with the "permitted" language noted above. 3. The problem may be, for Amateur Radio, that, in the Definitions section, standards for non -ionizing radiation are set which limit the level to an ERP of I watt. This is contradictory with the exemption noted in 2 above. This is a very low standard (tight) and IS NOT supported in the literature. Rather than introducing the Standard for non -ionizing radiation in the Definitions Section, why not refer to the Table on page 12. which is properly founded. 4. page 5. Section B. 1. This is also restrictive and depends entirely on how the restricltion is applied. history tells us that when towers fail, not to often, they generally fall well within a distance equal to about 25% of the tower height. Section B. S. a. & b. appear to mitigate, but there is plenty of ambiguity. The guy wire setback requirement, is subsection c., is excessive. 5. The bulk of the proposed Ordinance appears to be appropriate for the regulation of commercial antennas, and appears to be mainly concerned with the effects of Electromagnetic Radiation on habitable structures, given certain minimum Structural and Land Use performances. 6. I personally believe the City, and its residents. would be better served, with respect to this proposed Ordinance, if: a. Amateur Radio facilities, towers, feedlines, and equipment were SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED from this or any antenna Ordinance as regards Land Use and Zoning. b. Structural matters were left to the Uniform Building Code. c. Land Use matters and Mitigation Requirements were put in the appropriate Zoning Ordinance. or identified as those kinds of issues and thus subject to some sort of design process, rather than "certain trees shall". etc.. language. d. organizational contradictions concerning non -ionizing radiation were eliminated, and perhaps adding a section on IONIZING radiation. P1Pase let me know if there is anything more I can, or should, do Attachment 1 Cl[TY O]F 11MK>IC3 Community Development Department October 26, 1993 Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, Associate Planner City of La Quanta Planning & Development Division 71-495 CaRe Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 OCTL 2 6 �93 Clip yi�� PtAiviv. ��stpit rA RE: ZOA 93-035 (New Standards for Communiestions ToworG) Dear Leslie: 'Ihe City o..' Indio is receipt of the draft zoning ordinance amendment sent to us regarding communications towers and related structures. Our Community Development Department staff commends City of La Quinta staff involved in this zoning ordinance amendment. It seems to be a comprehensive amendment on a topic of increasingly greater concern to local governments as the telecommunications industry continues to Pxpand. Some sections (I.P. , Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Standards and Procedures) of the proposed amendment, however, ,appear to be very technical and may be difficult for most of iho huhl'o to understand. Given, however, that this telecommunications topic is inherently very technical, perhaps there is no easy way of communlent in9 technical asper.is of the topic in a more user friendly, plain English language format. Thank you for the opportunity to let rnm deparimerf eon:ment on this zoining ordinance amendment. Sincerely, Francise Urbina Assistant Planner. cc: Henry J. Ilohenstein, AICP, Community Development Director CITY OF INDIO • 100 CIVIC CENTER MALL • P.O. DRAWER 1788 • INDIO, CA 92202 DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE NUMBERS, ALL IN 619 AREA CODE CITY CLERK 342-6570 • CITY MANAGER 342.6580 . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT 342.65W FINANCE 342.6560 e FIRE 347-0756 • HUMAN RESOURCES 342-6540 • POLICE 347-8522 & FAX 347.4317 PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING 347-6530 • CITY HALL FAX 342-6556 9 CITY YARD 347-1058 Attachment FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry City of La Quinta 78-496 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Ms. Cherry: January 13, 1994 IN REPLY REFER TO: pw'T;.8�4�i'Yn ^AIT $R• w.Tl -r.- '•-•- • - i s T. •.. ^.tom: �;at.. '.C.,. AAA P{. JAN 18 1994 I am writing you in response to our phone conversation on January 6, 1994. The following are some comments and suggestions regarding your proposed City Ordinance addressing the locating and development of communications towers and related structures. This analysis was performed by a staff Electronics Engineer. 1. On page 4, Section 9.218.080, you have not included private radio carriers such as Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). 2. On page 12, Section 9.218.080(B), some of the units are incorrect in the Notes under Table A. The mW/am2 should be mW/cm2. 3. On page 12, Section 9.218.080(B), the source of Table A is not the Federal Communications Commission, it is the IEEE C95.1-1991. 4. On page 13,Section 9.218.080(C), average output needs clarification, for example: do you mean averaged over time? 5. On page 13, Section 9.218.080(C)(1-4), effective radiated power should be effective isotropic radiated power. 6. On page 13, Section 9.218.080(C), Table B, EIRP is not Effective Irradiated Power, it is Effective Isotropic Radiated Power. 7. On page 14, Section 9.218.080(D)(1), In our studies, the Commission uses a height of 2 meters, not 1.5 meters. 10. On page 14, Section 9.218.080(D)(1)(b), the word "deprived" should be "derived." Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry (2) I have enclosed for your information a copy of the last position statement adopted on January 9, 1990 by the Commission concerning federal preemption of state and local RF radiation standards. If you have further questions feel free to call me at (202)653-8152. Sincerely, 1 M . David M. Szypulski Electronic Engineer Office of Engineering & Technology Enclosure Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 :n the Matter of ) National Association ) cf Broadcasters j Petition for Issuance of a ) reclaratory Ruling to Preempt j State and Local Regulation of ) RF Radiation Standards that ) Affect Communications Services ) to the Public ) FCC 90-10 37837 Adopted: January 9, 1990 ; Released: January 11, 1990 By the Commission: 1. Before us for consideration is a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) on March 31, 1986, requesting that we preempt state and local regulation of radiofrequency (RF) radiation standards that affect communications services to the public. Also before us are numerous comments and reply comments supporting or opposing NAB's petition. 2. In its petition, NAB states that state and local RF radiation standards arbitrarily limit or preclude communications services to the public. In particular, NAB argues that a proliferation of state and local RF radiation regulations is impeding the development and introduction of new technologies and services. Because, according to NAB, these actions directly conflict with the Commission's goal of fostering interstate communications, 'NAB asks that we preempt state and local RF radiation standards more stringent than the RF radiation guidelines established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).l 1 The ANSI guidelines are used as processing guidelines under our environmental rules. See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(b). 2 3. We do not believe that preemption of state and local RF radiation standards is warranted at this time. The Commission has previously declined to preempt state and local regulation of RF radiation. See Responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission to Consider Biological Effects of Radiofre uenc Ra cation When Authorizing the Use of Ra io requency Devices, 100 FCC 2d 543, 557-558, reconsideration denied, 58 RR 2d 1128, 1131 (1985). The record before us in this proceeding does not provide a basis for altering our previous decisions. Any specific problems warranting action by the Commission can be brought to our attention on a case -by -case basis. 2 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the petition for declaratory ruling filed by the National Association of Broadcasters on March 17, 1986 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Donna R. Searcy Secretary 2 We note that the Environmental Protection Agency previously proposed the development of -federal RF guidelines (EPA Docket No. A-82-43). The Commission has supported EPA action in this area (see letter from Chairman Patrick to EPA Administrator Thomas, November 29, 1988), and we continue to do so. In this regard, our staff is in continuing contact with EPA's staff on this important issue. To:- Attachment 1 TRANSMITTAL MEMO X CITY MANAGER PARKS DEPARTMEMT BUILDING & SAFET CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE MARSHAL -Z CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR X JERRY HERMAN -9 STAN SAWA X Dana/al �Jou9l��-i / ksscna.fe T hq on, - FROM: A Pr�r7e1' pa1 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Leslie Cherry DATE: S j jB JEC'. PROJECT REVIEW CASE: pq;.4. JAN 2 4 1994 :-4' span far d s �'o� CE �r,rne�c�Q I t �rr,rnunr!'ct �/ Fo u:, ors ae laced St rruc4 urea PLEASE ]REVIEW AND PROVIDE ANY COMMEXrr' S YOU MAY HAVE ON THE ATTACHED ITEM BY rev IS_ 1�94 COMMENTS .fa�4k - Q , C INDIO ME JAN 2 5 1994 C�UNN FROM. Attachmeni TRANSMITTAL MEMO X CITY MANAGER X PARKS DEPARTMEMT X BUILDING & SAFETY CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE MARSHAL -Z CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR X JERRY HERMAN STAN SAWA %J�nald y �Joug6��- X 145so� icc f� r la nne X f'rI n6i/->a l Plan.7e,- PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Leslie Cherry DAT'E. IziQnu�r� T• FEB 0 1 1994 S U��CI . PROJECT REVIEW - %e u CASE: n q 3 -c 3s S+Qn bar d S 46,c E vrjme�c��t I t E�r,munrLcz�/ To w frs a,i d )2e laced St rtAc.t are-& PLEASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE ANY COMMEWrr' S YOU MAY HAVE ON THE ATTACHED ITEM BY ��ivruary 15" 144y COMMENTS: CIO COMMENT i �- 4,u-ate... I. Background Attachment 17 Environmental Assessment No. 93-270 Case No.035 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent City of La Quinta 2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent 619-777-7125 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253 3. Date Checklist Prepared January 21, 1994 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of La Quinta 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 20A 93-035, Standards for Commercial Communica Towers and Related Structures II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: X a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or X over covering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? FORM.009/CS -1- YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? X X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of X direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of X flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any X alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with - drawls, or through interception of an aquifers by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? FORM.009/CS -2- YES MAYBE NO 4. Biological Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or X number of any species of biological resources? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment or migration or movement of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X M X X 5. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 6. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce X new light or glare? 7. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a X substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 8. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any X natural resources? 9. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of X hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X 10. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? FORM.009/CS -3- YES MAYBE NO 11. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing X housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 12. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities X or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing X transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of X circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air X traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor X vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 13. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 14. Energy. Will the proposal result in: X a. Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? FORM.009/CS -4- YES MAYBE NO 15. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a X need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? X 16. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or X potential health hazard (excluding mental health). 17. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in X the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 18. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an X impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 19. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alter- X ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse X physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? FORM.009/CS -5- YES MAYBE NO 20. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential X to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one in which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well in the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). d. Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? FORM.009/CS -6- III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. X A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. January 21, 1994 - -� Date 3 gnature df Pre arer FORM.009/CS -7- CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-270 ADDENDUM ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-035 STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND RELATED STRUCTURES GENERAL DESCRIPTION: A need for regulations governing the siting and construction of commercial communications towers has been identified by the City Council for the City of La Quinta. The proposed ordinance has been drafted to provide such regulation as may be allowed at the local level of government. This ordinance can be implemented in conjunction with the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) . Commercial tower structures, antennas, and related equipment structures are regulated by this ordinance. The ordinance does not regulate amateur ham radio antennas or equipment. The proposed ordinance will apply citywide, and provide a comprehensive guide and set of standards for the approval of commercial towers for various types of antennas, transmitters, receivers, and equipment buildings. The types of users of commercial towers include VHF and UHF television, FM radio, Two-way radio, Common carriers, Cellular telephone, Fixed-point microwave, Low -power television, AM radio, and specialized mobile radio. There are several users that would be exempt from the particular ordinance, but may be regulated by other sections of the Municipal Code. The exempt users include: Amateur ham radio equipment; portable, handheld and vehicular transmission; industrial, scientific, and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC; a source of nonioning electromagnetic radiation with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes; marketed consumer products, such as microwave ovens, citizens band radios, and remote control toys; and goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated, except for occasional testing or demonstration. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Explanation of responses to Initial Study Checklist and recommended mitigation measures. 1. EARTH This ordinance will regulate commercial towers throughout the City of La Quinta. With the installation of tower structures and equipment buildings, there will be disruption, displacement, compaction and over -covering of the soil as tower sites are prepared. It is not anticipated that there will be any unstable earth conditions or EALC.01 changes in geological substructures resulting from the installation of such towers. Similarly, there will not be any significant changes in topography or ground surface relief features. Towers would not be allowed to be installed where there would be destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. There are no beaches, rivers, or oceans in or near La Quinta to be effected by tower installations. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards due to the installation of commercial towers is not anticipated as towers would not be permitted to be located on sites with these potential hazards, without conducting a geologic/seismic study. If towers are installed in populated areas, there is the risk of falling towers and antennas from large earthquakes and liquefaction activity. Setback requirements are found in the proposed ordinance that will provide a safety buffer from falling tower structures. Mitigation Measures: 1) Any installation of commercial towers within the City of La Quinta shall meet the provisions of the Uniform Building Code Section 2312 (d) 2 in order to comply with seismic safety requirements. 2) All structures shall be designed according to current Uniform Building Code requirements. 2. AIR The City of La Quinta is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) . The climate is characterized by high temperatures, low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Prevailing northwesterly winds funnel from the Los Angeles area into the Coachella Valley often transporting oxidants, sulfates, and nitrates into the airshed of the City. Although the local contribution to air quality is not substantial, the Coachella Valley area does violate state and federal standards for ozone. In addition, particulate standards are often exceeded because of wind -transported desert soils. The primary air quality concerns in the air basin are particulate matter (dust) and ozone. The PM10 standard is exceeded as a result of activities in the Coachella Valley which contributes to fugitive dust. The Coachella valley has the potential for generating significant fugitive dust as the area consists of alluvial materials and sand deposits . The air mass from the South Coast Air Basin contributes to the PM10 violations, but the majority of the problem is caused locally by urban development and agricultural activities. Suspended particulates (PM10) are generated from either a pollution source or are formed in the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions driven by sunlight. In 1990, SCAQMD prepared a State Implementation Plan for PM10 to define control measures to reduce the local contributions to the PM10 violations and to bring the Coachella Valley into compliance with federal and State ambient air quality standards. Control measures are directed toward five categories of emissions: (1) open area wind erosion; (2) unpaved roads, including farm roads; (3) paved roads, including storage and movement of fine particulates; (4) construction and demolition EALC.01 activities; (5) agricultural operations. Local government agencies are responsible for implementation of most of the control measures. Air quality will not be significantly impacted by the installation of commercial communications towers. There will be no gaseous emissions form the towers that could contribute to the deterioration of the ambient air quality. However, there could be PM10 generated from construction activities related to the installation of a tower and support structures. Similarly, no odors are emitted from such equipment. The towers regulated by this proposed ordinance will be tall, thin structures that cannot alter the air movement, moisture, or temperature in the local or regional climate. Some types of antennas and microwave dishes may emit a low level of thermal energy immediately around the antenna, however, the amount will not be significant enough to alter the climate. Construction activities may result in air pollutant sources that may deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and include emissions from on -site construction activities and fuel combustion. Mitigation Measures: 1) Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City ordinances, including the PM10 Ordinance. 2) Tower sites graded but not immediately constructed upon shall be planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. 3. WATER The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water, irrigation and sewer service to the City of La Quinta. Irrigation water is provided to the City via the Coachella Canal. The canal, which loops through the City on the west side of Lake Cahuilla County Park and PGA West, receives its supply of water from the Imperial Reservoir on the Colorado River north of Yuma, Arizona. Water is used to irrigate golf courses, agricultural areas, and to recharge the underground aquifer. Private wells are also found within the City that provide both domestic and irrigation water. Drainage in many parts of the City has been altered by flood improvements, however, in the event of a major storm some areas of the City could experience flooding conditions. For the most part, the nature of the soils in the City allow for rapid permeability . The proposed tower ordinance is not anticipated to have any effect upon the surface or ground water quality in the City. The rate of absorption and drainage patterns in the area are not expected to significantly change because of the installation of commercial communications towers and related structures. Mitigation Measures: All future installations of commercial communications towers and related structures shall comply with all applicable City and Coachella Valley Water District requirements regarding storm water and nuisance water resulting from grading and construction activities and from post -development. EALC.01 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The City of La Quinta is located within a Sonoran Desert Scrub environment. This environment is generally noted as containing plants which have the ability to economize water, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Dominant plants include: Creosote Bush, Bur -sage, Ocotillo, Barrel Cactus, Jumping Cholla, Smoketree, Mesquite, Four -wing Saltbush, Agave, and Desert Lavender. Continual development and agricultural activity has disrupted much of the natural plant environment within La Quinta. Relic plant communities can occasionally be found along fence rows, between fields, and in remaining dune areas. Mammalian species common to this area are small nocturnal animals, such as mice, kangaroo rats, desert cottontail, jack rabbits, and coyotes. Reptiles are numerous, including the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. Mitigation for the disruption of this lizard's habitat is provided by payment of a set fee if the project site is located within the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Preserve Development Fee Area. It is highly unlikely that any new species of animals would be introduced into the City as a result of the installation of a commercial communications tower. It is possible that there could be an impact upon native plant species resulting from the installation of commercial communications towers and related structures. New plant species could be introduced into the tower area as a result of landscaping requirements . It is also a possibility that there will be a reduction in agricultural land as new towers and related structures are constructed. The typical tower site requires only an acre or two of area, which would not significantly threaten a plant community. Areas where unique, rare or endangered plan or animal species are known to exist are identified in the Master Environmental Assessment and the General Plan. Any application for a tower would require that the City prepare an environmental assessment to determine the impact of that specific project upon any biological resources. Mitigation Measures: 1. Any application for approval of the installation of a commercial communication tower and/or related structure shall have an environmental assessment prepared to determine any significant impact upon biological resources. 5. NOISE The significant noise sources in the City of La Quinta are generated primarily from automobile and truck traffic. The existing areas of the City which are subject to high noise exposure are primarily along major street corridors. Rural areas with low traffic volumes typically experience noise levels ranging form 35 to 55 dB (a) , depending on the time of day. Commercial communications towers could be located in either developed or undeveloped areas of the City. The tower structures emit little, if any, noise. However, the vehicular traffic noise associated with the on- going operations of the tower would be minimal as the towers are only manned during inspection and maintenance trips, usually by one or two persons. Construction of a tower may require temporary traffic volume increases and noise increases during the daytime. It is not anticipated that the installation and operation of towers will have any significant impact on the existing ambient noise levels within the City. EALC. of Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 6. LIGHT AND GLARE It is possible that federal requirements for towers of certain height and in certain locations may require a tower to have aviation strobe lights as a hazard warning. Equipment guidelines might have outdoor security lighting as well. However, any security lighting will be subject to the Dark sky Ordinance and any other ordinance regulating light fixtures and glare. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant impact from lighting associated with the installation of a commercial communication tower. Mitigation Measures: 1. Applications for towers that will have any type of outdoor lighting will be required as a condition of approval to comply with all current ordinances pertaining to light and glare. 7. LAND USE The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to result in any significant alteration of the present or future planned land use in the City of La Quinta. It is possible that the installation of a commercial communications tower may be found objectionable by adjacent property owners, who may oppose approval by the City. Opposition based on aesthetic issues must be tempered with the knowledge that if an applicant is denied approval for the installation of a tower or antenna equipment at two different locations, the applicant can then appeal to the FCC to preempt the local decision and obtain federal approval to install a tower at the best suited location as far as transmission and reception requirements, regardless of aesthetic or land use concerns. Mitigation Measures: None feasible 8. NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed ordinance may impact three categories of natural ate for concrete, mineral, and water; 2) construction- related resources (e.g. aggregate metals for tower structure, other building materials); 3) scenic vistas and views. Specific areas within the City with known mineral resources have been identified in the General Plan and Master Environmental Assessment. Applications for towers will be required to have an environmental assessment prepared as part of the staff review process. Specific mitigation measures can be required on a case -by -case basis. Impacts upon construction -related resources will not be significant on a project -by - project basis. There is no feasible mitigation for this issue. EALC.01 Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 9. RISK OF UPSET The identified potential risks of upset associated with the installation of commercial communications towers and related structures includes tower failure and biological effects from radiation emissions. Tower failure is addressed in the required setbacks for locating a tower. It has been noted that approximately the top 25% of a tower will fall during a failure as opposed to the entire tower falling over. Many towers are secured by guy wires to add stability to those towers that are very high. However, it is always possible that an entire tower could fall over during a seismic event or major storm. The ordinance requires the applicant for a tower approval to submit documents from a California certified structural engineer stating that the tower structure is designed to minimum standards. A proposed tower will be required to comply with Uniform Building Code and other requirements for structural integrity and installation. Any related equipment structures will also be required to comply with all applicable building codes. Mitigation Measures: 1. All tower structures and related structures shall be required in the Conditions of Approval to comply with all local and other governmental regulations and codes governing structural integrity, site installation, and construction. 10. POPULATION The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on future development and settlement in the City of La Quinta. It is possible that a lower density of residential development may result adjacent to a tower, due to the perception that there are dangerous emissions from antennas, transceivers, and microwave dishes or aesthetic concerns. Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 11. HOUSING The proposed commercial communication tower ordinance is not anticipated to result in any effect in existing housing or to create a demand for additional housing. The towers sites are unmanned and therefore will not provide any additional employment to attract new residents to the City. With each application for approval of a tower, an environmental assessment will be prepared that will among all other issues consider this issue. If there is a proposal to remove housing in order to create a tower site, then there could be an impact, although not a significant impact, as tower sites are typically relatively small in area. EALC.01 Mitigation Measures: None Feasible. 12. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION With the installation of commercial communications tower facilities there will be very little vehicular traffic generated from the on -going operations. During construction of the tower, there could be several vehicles on the project site for a short period of time. However, after completion, the towers are unmanned unless subject to inspection or maintenance. The ordinance will not result in any impacts to waterborne, rail, or air traffic, as these modes of transportation do not exist in the City of La Quinta. There are no rivers, railroads, or airports in the City. Thermal Airport, located to the east of the City, is not near enough to La Quinta to cause concern about towers impacting an airport influenced area as defined in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed commercial communications tower will have minimal effect on fire or police protection services. Schools will not be impacted as there will not be any generation of new students by the installation of a tower facility. Similarly, parks and other recreation facilities will not be impacted. Towers would not generate park users, thus no park fees would be assessed nor would parkland be dedicated in lieu of payment of park fees. The maintenance of public facilities and roads would not be significantly impacted by the installation of towers. If a tower were erected in a remote location and a private road had to be built to access the tower, then that project would be required to have a comprehensive environmental review prepared for consideration. Maintenance of a private road would be the responsibility of the applicant or property owner, unless that road were dedicated to the City as a public street. Other governmental services that could be impacted as a result of this proposed ordinance would not be significantly effected. Therefore, no feasible mitigation measures apply to this issue. Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 14. ENERGY The proposed ordinance will not in itself require the expenditure of energy or fuel. Any development of commercial communications towers will require the expenditure of energy in the form of fossil fuels. On -going operation of a tower will require EALC.oi electricity of an unknown amount. It is not anticipated that there will be a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or that new sources of energy will need to be developed. Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 15. UTILITIES The installation of commercial communications towers will not result in the need for new or substantially altered utility systems. No adverse impact upon utility providers is anticipated from the adoption of this proposed ordinance. Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 16. HUMAN HEALTH The proposed ordinance contains a section pertaining to nonioning electromagnetic radiation (NIER) standards and procedures. This section provides two kinds of standards, one based on NEIR calculations and measurements for most commercial uses, and one based on tower distance from nearby habitable structures for the remaining commercial NIER sources. NIER sources are those frequencies in the lower two-thirds of the electromagnetic spectrum and include all radio, television, and microwave frequencies as well as ordinary household current and radar. NIER is distinguished from ionizing electromagnetic radiation (IER) - cosmic, atomic, and X- ray - by its lack of energy to ionize or alter the molecular structure of living tissue. Although the short-term and long-term damage to humans resulting from exposure to even low levels of IER is well documented, potential health hazards associated with some NIER exposure is a subject of controversy among health scientists. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) states that measurements have shown that ground -level power densities recommended due to microwave directional antennas are normally a thousand times or more bellow recommended safety limits. The FCC now uses the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) protection guides for purposes of evaluating environmental impact from the radio frequencies from 300kHz to 100 GHz . Data shows that the human body absorbs radio frequency energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. The most restrictive limits are in the frequency range of 30 to 300 MHz where maximum levels of 1 mW/cm squared as averaged over any six minute period of exposure, are recommended. This recommendation is based on a determination that the threshold for hazardous biological effects was approximately 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) . A safety factor of ten was then incorporated to arrive at the final recommended protection guidelines. The proposed ordinance incorporates these protection guidelines. EALC.01 Mitigation Measures: 1. Each applicant for a commercial communications tower facility is required by the proposed ordinance to submit certified documents stating that all equipment complies with the FCC and ANSI standards for radio frequencies. 17. AESTHETICS It is possible that towers will result in some degree of obstruction of scenic vistas or views open to the public. It is also possible that towers may create an aesthetically offensive site open to the public. Depending upon the type of antennas and supports that would be used on a tower, the aesthetic impact could be minimal or significant. Whip antennas are very thin and become almost invisible in the sky. Microwave dishes and array antennas will be seen for some distance. The height of the tower structure will be a factor in the aesthetic impact. A very tall tower located in an open site or atop a ridge will be more visible than one located closer to the mountains on flat ground. A detailed assessment of the aesthetic impact of each tower will have to be made on a project -by -project basis. Little can be done to screen a tall tower structure, however, the equipment buildings can be screened with block walls, berming and/or landscaping. Federal preemption of local decision is a possibility when an applicant for approval of a tower or additional antenna equipment to an existing tower is denied two different locations. The applicant can appeal to the FCC for preemption and possibly obtain approval to install a tower or add additional antennas if the FCC approves the appeal. Thus, City denial on the basis of aesthetics, among other issues, can be disregarded if the FCC approves a preemption. Mitigation Measures: 1. Block walls, landscape screening or other screening methods shall be required around equipment buildings when appropriate. 18. RECREATION The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to have any impact upon the number of recreation facilities or the quality of recreation in La Quinta. Mitigation Measures: None feasible. 19. CULTURAL RESOURCES There are known prehistoric and historic sites within the City of La Quinta. The La Quinta area has a high potential for the discovery of additional cultural resources in undeveloped areas. It is possible that future tower locations could have cultural deposits on them that would have to be properly located, documented and mitigated prior to any site disturbance or construction. RALC. 01 Mitigation Measures: 1. All future tower projects shall be required to have a reconnaissance survey conducted early in the planning review process. The recommendations of the survey report shall be made part of the project conditions of approval. The requirements of Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act shall be complied with. 2. All project applications within the City of La Quinta shall be forwarded for review and comment to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 20. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed commercial communications tower ordinance could result in the potential to reduce the habitat of wildlife species, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant, or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. These issues will be considered through the environmental review process as individual applications are submitted to the City. The appropriate feasible mitigation measures will be required as a part of project conditions of approval. The proposed ordinance will not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term goals. The ordinance will not have cumulative impacts of a significant nature. Potential impacts that have been identified in this document can be mitigated with feasible measures that will lessen individual impacts to a level of insignificance. The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. EALC.01 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 12, 1994 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93-495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC., MR. PHIL PEAD LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #36 OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BACKGROUND This request was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on December 14, 1993. The applicant requested and received a continuance to January 11, 1994. Prior to this date, the applicant requested and received an extension to February 22, 1994. On February 22, 1994, the applicant requested a continuance to April 12, 1994. After discussion the Planning Commission approved the continuance. The applicant has now requested that his application be processed with his recently submitted time extension. The project expires on May 11, 1994, without an extension. Therefore, based upon this recent application it is recommended that this matter be tabled. Staff will be processing the time extension and modifications to the conditions for your May 10, 1994 meeting. At that time the entire project is before you for any modifications. RECOMMENDATION: Move to table the request for modification to Condition #36 of the Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan 93-495. PCST.172 1 BEST, BEST 6( KRIEGER A PARTWNSNIP INCL1KN06 PROPSGINONAL CORPORATIOND LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH• WYNNE S. FURTH GLEN E. STEPHENS- OENE TANAKA WILLIAM R. DKWOLFE• BASIL T. CHAPMAN BARTON C. GAUT• TIMOTHY M. CONNOR PAUL T. SELZER• VICTOR L. WOLF DALLAS HOLMES. DANIEL E. OLIVIER CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER- HOWARD B. GOLDS RICHARD T. ANDERSON' STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JOHN D. WAHLIN• MARC E. EMPEY MICHAEL D. HARRIS- JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER W. CURT EALY• MARTIN A. MUELLER JOHN E. BROWN- J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHAEL T. RIDDELL• VICTORIA N. KING MEREDITH A. JURY- SCOTT C. SMITH MICHAEL GRANT' JACK S. CLARKE. JR. FRANCIS J. DAUM' BRIAN M. LEWIS ANNE T. THOMAS. BRADLEY E. NEUFELD O. MARTIN NETHERY• SHARYL WALKER GEORGE M. REYES PETER M. BARMACK WILLIAM W. /LOYD. JR. JEANNETTE A. PETERSON GREGORY L. HARDKE ELISE K. TRAYNUM KENDALL H. MACVEY WILLIAM O. DAHLINO. JR. CLARK M. ALSOP MATT H. MORRIS E DAVID J. RWIN. JEFFREY V. DUNN MICHAEL J. ANOELSON- STEVEN C. DKBAUN DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' ERIC L. GARNER ANTONIA ORAPHOS DENNIS M. COTA GREGORY K. WIKLINSON ROBERT W. HARGREAVES • A PROrCOMONAL CORPORATION JANICE L. WEIS PATRICK D. DOLAN BOO EAST TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY PATRICK H.W.F. PEARCE DEAN R. DERLETH POST OFFICE BOX 2710 KIRK W. SMITH HELENE P. DREYER PALM CALIFORNIA 92263 JASON D. OABAREINER EMILY P. HEMPHILL SPRINGS. KYLE A. SNOW SONIA RUBIO SHARMA TELEPHONE (619) 325-7264 MARK A. EASTER JOHN O. PINKNEY DIANE L. FINLEY DEARING D. ENGLISM TELECOP)ER (Bf9) 326-0368 MICHELLE OUELLETTE THEODORE J. GRISWOLD DAVID P. PHIPPEN. SR. JULIANN ANDERSON SUSAN C. NAUSS JEFFREY R. THORPE CHRISTOPHER T. DODSON LORA H. WILSON SERNIE L. WILLIAMSON PATRICIA BYARS CISNEROS OF COUMBEL KEVIN K. RANDOLPH JACOUELINE E. BAILEY JAMES B. CORISON JAMES S. GILPIN MARK D. DECKER C. MICHAEL COWETT MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH BRUCE W. BEACH KIM A. BYRENS ARLENE PRATER CYNTHIA M. GERMANO JOHN C. TOBIN MARY E. OILSTRAP GLENN P. SABINE PHILIP J. KOEHLER DIANE C. SLASOEL REBECCA MARES DURNEY ORICESIN DOROTHY 1. ANDERSON RIVERSIDE tOO9) 886-1450 O. HENRY WELLES JAMES R. MARPER RANCHO MIRAGE (819) 588-2611 DINA O. HARRIS RAYMOND BEST (1888-1957) ONTARIO (909) 989-8584 SARBARA R. BARON JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913-1875) SAN DIE00 (619I 595-1339 RICHARD T. EGGER EUGENE BEST 11893-198U April 7, 1994 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Plat Plan 93-495 Dear Mr. Herman: APR 0 7 19, CITYf A C:U;tsTk As you are aware, this office represents Simon Plaza, Inc., the developers of the 5.6 acre site located on the southeast corner of Hwy. 111 and Washington Street, which is the subject of the above mentioned plat plan. I have been authorized and directed by my client to respectfully request that pursuant to Condition No. 2 of the Conditions of Approval that the City consider a one year time extension of the plat plan until May 11, 1995. As you are aware, my client was prepared to proceed with the development of the project as previously approved. However, when the Conditions of Approval and site design and density changed last year, our financing source refused to proceed. Since that time, we have been unable to replace our financing source although we are diligently pursuing that matter and hope that within a reasonable period of time to proceed. In that connection, Condition No. 36 which has been amended on several occasions, requires the dedication of the Washington Street right-of-way. As we have previously explained, we cannot provide that dedication until we are able to complete our purchase of the Pomona First Federal Savings & Loan parcel. Without financing, that has proved impossible to do. It is our understanding that the matter of this Condition is currently scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1994. 5931 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER Mr. Jerry Herman April 7, 1994 Page 2 In view of our request to extend the entire plat plan and each of its conditions, which we assume will require both Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, we would respectfully request that the Planning Commission defer action on our request until the hearing before it on our proposed one year extension. As required by the City Code, enclosed please find our check in the amount of $500.00. In addition, under separate cover, you will shortly received two sets of gummed labels addressed to property owners within 300 feet of the specific planned site. Finally, you should receive a similar request for this extension from Pomona, directly from it. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. If anything further is required in order to perfect our request for the one year extension, please contact me immediately. PTS/sk Enclosures cc: Fred J. Simon, Sr. Yours very truly, BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Paul T. Se zer 5931 BI #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 12, 1994 CASE NO.: SIGN APPROVAL 94-247 APPLICANT: MORITE OF CALIFORNIA (RED ROBIN RESTAURANT) SIGN COMPANY: PROMOTIONAL SIGNS UNLIMITED REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL SIGN FOR A RESTAURANT LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY I II APPROXIMATELY 950 FEET EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET WITHIN THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: The subject property is the Red Robin Restaurant which was recently completed in the One Eleven Center. The :restaurant fronts onto Highway 111 just west of Simon Drive. PREVIOUS SIGN APPROVAL: The restaurant was approved with a "Red Robin" logo on the north and east elevation of the structure. On the south elevation is a "Red Robin" logo and "Red Robin" sign near the east end of the building. Because of the diagonal entry at the northwest corner of the building, the westerly sign was approved on the tower structure at the diagonal entrance. This sign, at the time of approval, was considered the west facing sign. Initially, the applicant did propose a "Red Robin" sign on the west elevation on the low building wall adjacent to the outdoor eating area. This sign was not approved because the trellis structure mounted to the wall in the location of the proposed sign. Additionally, since the diagonal sign was considered the west facing sign, a second sign could not be approved as a part of the standard sign program. REQUESTED ADDITIONAL SIGN: As permitted by Code, the applicant is requesting an additional sign on the west elevation which would be visible for traffic coming from Washington Street eastward. The Code allows an additional sign, if necessary to compensate for inadequate visibility or to facilitate good sign balance. PCST.173 1 The applicant is proposing to install an illuminated channel letter sign stating "Red Robin" on the upper parapet in the middle of the building facing the west. The proposed size of this sign is approximately 21_+_ feet. The "R's" in "Red Robin" would be 27 inches high while the remaining letters would be 24 inches high. The overall length is proposed to be 10 feet 8 inches. The sign would be standard Red Robin red with dark bronze returns and trim cap. The applicant shows the sign placed just below the decorative cornice molding. ANALYSIS: Due to the location of the south facing sign on Highway 111 behind an inset of the building at the east end, it is not visible for east going traffic until you are nearly past the building. The sign over the diagonal entrance in the parking lot while approved as the west facing sign is not visible from Highway 111. Therefore, there are grounds to permit an additional sign. To date, the applicant has used a temporary banner in the location of the proposed sign to identify the restaurant from the west. Staff feels that the proposed location is acceptable for an additional sign, however, the exhibit which has been submitted by the applicant, shows a sign nearly touching the cornice moldings. In viewing the sign exhibit elevation, it appears that the sign is located between two cornice moldings. However, the lower cornice molding is on a different wall in front of the mounting surface and not physically a part of this wall. Staff feels that in order for the sign to be architecturally compatible with the structure, that a space of a minimum 3 inches should be provided between the top of the sign and the bottom of the cornice molding above it. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested sign adjustment to allow an additional sign on the west side of the building, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Sign exhibits 3. Conditions of Approval - draft PCST.173 2 n�i �'/yyyJ1M�N �.M�MN MIywM4�'� M a 8• pq V 0 LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT LJC_:JLJSC N04' 004 Promotional Signs Unlimited ■ 22552 Muirlands Blvd. Lake Forest, CA 92630 (714) 458-1000 FAX (714) 458-3530 March 28, 1994 City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA. 92253 RE: Red Robin Restaurant 78-722 Hwy. 111 La Quinta, CA. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SIGN JUSTIFICATION Under our current permit #12505, we have installed two (2) small sets of channel letters on the "front entrance" and the "south elevation". We are requesting a third set to be installed on the "west elevation". This is due to the fact that from the busy intersection of Highway 111 and Washington, going West to East, we have no visible advertising which alerts clients to the location before they pass it. Our building design is such that the entrance sign which of course is necessary cannot be seen from the most important intersection. We believe this was an oversight in the original sign request and ask your help in giving us the needed advertising to ensure our success. Sincerly, �ol V`e David Terrack Vice President Marketing DT/db "A Full Service Electrical & Commercial Sign Company" A Division of Sign Toppers Inc. State Contractor's License #636512 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN APPROVAL 94-247 - RED ROBIN RESTAURANT APRIL 12, 1994 1. That approval of this sign application is subject to Exhibit "A" for SA 94-247, on file in the Planning and Development Department, unless modified by the following conditions. 2. That a building; permit shall be obtained prior to installation of the sign and that the sign exhibits for the building permit shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That a minimum space of three inches shall be provided between the tops of the new sign and the bottom of the painted cornice molding. 4. That all temporary banners shall be removed at the time of the sign installation. CONAPRVL.123 1 CC MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California March 22, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows who led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Mary Wagner, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. PLOT PLAN 91-456. AMENDMENT #2: a request of The Koenig Companies for approval of an amendment to a site plan for a commercial shopping center consisting of 85,650 square feet on 9.25 acres. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff stated that Condition #78 had been added to require additional architectural treatment to the north elevation of the future Ralph's building due to the reduction in the building setback. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. John Koenig, The Koenig Companies, stated his reasons for requesting the amendment. He further stated his objection to Condition #48.C. regarding the driveway access off Calle Tampico. He further stated his concern regarding Condition #78, adding additional architectural treatment as this elevation had already been approved. Their plans were to heavily landscape the area from view of the proposed residential development to the north (La Quinta Village). Mr. Koenig stated they planned to open during the later part of January, 1995. PC3-22 1 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1994 3. Commissioner Adolph questioned the reasoning behind two access lanes into the project from of Calle Tampico at the signal, and the problems that would be incurred when the traffic tried to merge. Discussion followed regarding the problems with the Calle Tampico entrance. Following the discussion, Mr. Koenig asked if he could be allowed to work the problem out with staff and if there was any objection to the entrance being off -set from the Civic Center entrance. Commission Adolph stated he had no objection. 4. Commissioner Adolph stated he had no objection to the applicant using landscaping to soften the north elevation, but the trees would need to be specimen size. 5. Commissioner Abels asked if the Ralph's Market would be the same as their store at Cook Street and Country Club Drive. Mr. Koenig stated it would not as Ralph's was only building a 40,000 square foot building. Ralph's felt they could do as much with 40,000 square feet as with 45,000 square feet. They just reduced the size of their backroom storage. 6. Commissioner Abels stated he had no objection to the applicant working with staff to resolve Condition #48.C. Senior Engineer Steve Speer asked Mr. Koenig if they could move Shop #1 to the west so they would not lose the parking on the east. Mr. Koenig stated moving Shop #1 would hurt their project. He would prefer to lose the parking spaces as they were over the required amount needed. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 8. Chairwoman Barrows questioned Condition #28.I. regarding the landscaping on the north elevation. Commissioner Ellson stated the height of the trees should be stated. Chairwoman Barrows stated that a sentence should be added to require a minimum 15-foot high trees and the amount of density required. Commissioner Adolph asked if the landscaping plans would come back before the Commission. Staff stated they would have to submit landscaping plans for Commission approval. 9. Commissioner Adolph questioned Condition #48 as to who would be required to build the north perimeter wall and what kind of plans should be required to see that the emergency access construction does not destroy the entire wall. Commissioners also asked what type of landscaping should be planted until the access is built. Staff indicated that in the access area only shrubs and groundcover will be required. PC3-22 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1994 10. Chairwoman Barrows stated that Condition #78 should be deleted. 11. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Abels/Adolph moved and seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 94-008 approving Amendment #2 to Plot Plan 91-456, subject to the amended Conditions as stated above. Unanimously approved. B. PLOT PLAN 91-473, AMENDMENT #1, EXTENSION #2: a request of Desert Hospital for approval of a one year time extension (#2) and a request to revise the approved site plan by relocating the three story medical complex. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Ronald McMahon, applicant explained the changes they were requesting to their project and stated they had no objections to the revised Conditions of Approval. 3. Commissioner Adolph stated he was not in favor of the 75-foot high tower and was there anyway of reducing the height of the tower. Mr. McMahon stated it was up to Desert Hospital, but he personally had no objection to reducing its overall height. 4. Commissioner Ellson questioned why the loading area was now in the shape of a " V " and appeared to be in the middle of the surgical area. Mr. McMahon described the loading area and explained the interior floor plan had not been designed at this time, but the supplies would not be unloaded in the middle of the surgical area. 5. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 6. Commissioner Ellson questioned the visual impact to the residents to the south on 47th Avenue. Discussion followed regarding the south elevation. 7. Commissioner Adolph stated there was a need to soften the wall. Mr. McMahon stated they could landscape the area. 8. Commissioner Abels stated his concern about the size of the building secluded by itself and the proportion of the tower to the rest of the building. Commissioner Marrs stated he approved of the tower. PC3-22 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1994 9. Commissioner Adolph asked City Attorney Wagner what conditions the Commission could change. City Attorney Wagner stated that any and all conditions could be changed as long as it was consistent with the current Zoning Code. 10. Commissioner Ellson questioned the location of the trash receptacle and stated she felt it would be best if it were moved to the northeast boundary. Discussion followed. 11. Following the discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 94-009 approving a one year extension of time and request to modify the original site/architectural plans for Plot Plan 91-473, Amendment #2, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Unanimously approved. C. PLOT PLAN 92-490 (REVISED) AND SPECIFIC PLAN 92-022, EXTENSION OF TIME #1; a request of EFP Corporation for approval of a time extension for a previously approved commercial shopping center consisting of +251,550 square feet on ±21.3 developable acres. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Hurst, architect, spoke and stated they had no objections to the proposed conditions. 3. Commissioner Marrs asked if they still intended to use the neon lights. Mr. Hurst stated they did intend to use the neon lights for soffit lighting. 4. Commissioner Adolph asked where they stood on the development of the center. Mr. Hurst stated they had more interest now than six months ago. 5. Chairwoman Barrows asked Mr. Hurst to explain Condition #24.V. regarding the covered trellis walkway. Mr. Hurst explained. Chairwoman Barrows asked that they keep the project pedestrian oriented. 6. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. Commissioners Adolph/Ellson moved to adopt Resolution 94-006 recommending approval of a one year time extension for Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) and Specific Plan 92-022, subject to the attached conditions. PC3-22 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1994 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-009, DESERT GARDENS; a request of Mr. Mike Pino to establish a temporary retail nursery with outdoor storage on a portion of a 2.7 acre property within a Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) district. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ellson asked staff what long term uses were planned for Highway 111 and if this use was a compatible use. Staff stated this was unknown at this time, but could possibly be a compatible short term use. 3. Commissioner Ellson asked about the use of the property to the rear of the subject site. Staff stated if the property to the rear was to be utilized it would require additional study (due to the archaeological sites) and Planning Commission review. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Brent Kittle spoke on behalf of the applicant. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked what the plans were for the future of the business. Mr. Kittle stated it depended upon what the owner intended to do with the land. It was up for sale and they were only tenants. He further stated that the only use of the property to the rear would be for citrus trees or as a holding area for plants. 6. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant had any problems with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Kittle stated they did not. 7. Commissioner Ellson asked if the applicant had any problem with a review after one year. Mr. Kittle stated they did not. 8. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved to adopt Resolution 94-007 certifying the Categorical Exemption and approving a temporary nursery at 79-410 Highway 111, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval and with the amendment to Condition #23 that the owner will dedicate to the City sufficient Highway 111 right-of-way. PC3-22 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1994 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None V. BUSINESS SESSION: A. SIGN APPLICATION 94-244; a request of Palms to Pines Canvas for approval of a canvas entry portecochere with lettering for Mario's Garden Cafe. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff stated that a question had been brought up regarding having the chrome poles painted to match the light poles. 2. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff to illustrate the proposed color of the poles. 3. Mr. Ernie Brooks, representing the applicant, stated he would answer any questions of the Commission. 4. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant had any objections to changing the color. Mr. Brooks stated he did not. Discussion followed regarding adding some grill work. 5. Commissioner Marrs stated he approved of the chrome. Commissioner Abels stated he also approved of the chrome. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ellson/Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 94-010 approving Sign Application 94-244, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Unanimously approved. B. SIGN APPLICATION 94-246; a request of Blockbuster Video for deviation from the sign program for One Eleven La Quinta Center to allow corporate signage. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. PC3-22 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1994 2. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was any shading provided by the awning. Staff stated the overhang was six feet and the awning would extend an additional two feet. 3. Mr. Chuck Riff, representing Chandler Signs for Blockbuster Video, explained their request. He further stated they would be willing to reduce the two "torn ticket" portions by 33 % to 4' X 8' as recommended by staff. They would like in return, to have channel letters with the torn ticket logo on the north elevation, remove the awning, and leave the west elevation as submitted as it adds balance to the building. 4. Commissioner Marrs asked if the reduced version would give the one foot clearance as recommended by staff. Mr. Riff stated it did. 5. Chairwoman Barrows asked for a clarification of what was requested on the north elevation. 6. Commissioner Adolph asked if they would consider a different color for the awning. Mr. Riff stated the color was part of the Blockbuster trademark. He stated that a darker blue could be utilized and they could eliminate the yellow band. Discussion followed regarding the colors utilized and the use of the awnings. 7. Commissioner Abels stated he had no objection to applicant's request. Commissioner Ellson stated she ha6 no objection to the channel letters on the south side, nor the torn ticket as long as it was reduced in size, but does not favor the awnings at all. Chairwoman Barrows stated she also agreed with the torn ticket signage but did not want to see with the awnings. Discussion followed regarding the awnings. 8. Commissioner Adolph asked if the signage square footage would be over the allowable signage if they reduced the torn ticket sign, removed the awning, and added the "Blockbuster Video" signage. Staff stated they would be within the allowable signage, but staff would not recommend both the Blockbuster torn ticket and sign be allowed. It should be one or the other. Discussion followed regarding signage at the Blockbuster stores in other cities. 9. Commissioners discussed possible alternatives for the signage on all elevations: West: Torn ticket outline on the tower with channel letters on the facia and no awning. North: No awning with channel letters centered on the facia. PC3-22 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1994 South: Channel letters on the facia 10. Mr. Riff expressed his concern that this would not be enough signage to advertise his business. Commissioners discussed with Mr. Riff different alternatives. 11. Mr. Steve Bernstein, franchise owner, stated his concern that his business was an impulse business rather than a destination business and they would lose 60% of their business with the limited visibility. He further suggested that the torn ticket be done as an outline with no verbiage and channel letters on the three sides. He added that their business would be utilizing over 4,900 of the 7,000 square foot building. 12. Commissioner Abels suggested the Commission continue this item to give the Commission an opportunity to check out the other stores to see what would be the best alternative. 13. Chairwoman Barrows asked Mr. Bernstein to explain what the signage was on the Indio store. Mr. Bernstein stated there was no torn ticket on any of the Coachella Valley stores and most stores had channel letters on three sides. Discussion followed regarding alternatives. 14. Mr. Rob Sanford, representing the One Eleven La Quinta Center, stated the other tenant for the building was Dominoes and they would be entitled to signs on three sides of the building according to the sign program for the Center. 15. Following discussion, Commissioner Abels moved to continue the item to April 12, 1994. The motion died for a lack of a second. 16. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Marrs/Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 94-011 to approve Sign Application 94-246, subject to the following conditions: a. West elevation: b. North elevation: C. South elevation: Unanimously approved. 4' X 8' torn ticket outline (Y border) with channel letters on the west facia. Channel letters centered on the facia with no awning or logo. Channel letters on the facia. PC3-22 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 1994 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of March 22, seconded by Commissioners Abels/Mans to adopt the Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER - None VHL ADJOURNMENT 1994, it was moved and minutes as submitted. There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Ellson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 12, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:35 P.M., March 22, 1994. PC3-22 eve Director 4erntt of Trustees on( 00Mn l go resident server Sor)ca rer ,tiss Dry Crowe craw VV a"a-Hawiey 9n Eli arQwis Jd :shower na Laws ,aes Lover„an V Mac,ersen ergo Ia,ov C+ C A L I F 0 R N J A 1615 Broadway — Suite 705 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510)763-0972 TO: The citizens of California, especially Mayors and members of Boards of Supervisors FROM: The CPF Board of Trustees and Members RE: Local Preservation Programs At Risk P R E S E R V A T 1 0 N F O U N D A T I O N A Statewide Non -Profit Organization Promoting Historic Preservation MAR 3 1 W-1 u �d Citq - gltJrib S Chains The California Preservation Foundation (CPF) is a private, non profit organization representing preservationists throughout the state. Founded in 1975. CPF has an educational mission which it carries out through its workshops, awards programs, publications and Annual State Preservation Conferences. CPF's focus is to assist local individuals, organizations and governments in their efforts to identify, protect and enhance historic resources in each California community. CPF members are local preservationist in every community of the state. They are private citizens, preservation professionals, planners, craftspeople, architects and historic property owners, as well as elected and appointed officials or public employees. The members meet once a year at the Annual State Preservation Conference, now in its nineteenth year, to discuss the state of preservation in the State of California. The primary issue this year was raised from the floor of the Annual Meeting by Judy Wright, Councilwoman and former Mayor of the City of Claremont. The most pressing problem we face stems from local government budget restrictions. Some cities are cutting back on programs and on staffing, and some are even eliminating long-standing boards and commissions. Cultural Heritage or "Landmarks" programs are particularly at risk. Others attending the meeting concurred, pointing out that the experience in their communities fits this pattern precisely. It was then moved by Lucy Berk (Escondido), seconded by Anthea Hartig (Ontario) and passed unanimously to bring this problem to the attention of aii community leaders and preservationists throughout the state. larsn The CPF Board of Trustees, in its determination to improve the climate for ascc n preservation in California, relays this Resolution to you in the hope that you can seek creative ways to maintain the level of preservation activity in your community, and prevent the needless elimination of these programs we have nUsm worked so long and so hard to establish. po-woy na ay ® C A L I F 0 R N I A P R E S E R V A T 1 0 N F O U N D A T I O N 1 1615 Broadway — Suite 705 A Statewide Non -Profit Organ,zation Oakland, California 94612 Promoting Historic Prese vation Telephone: (510) 763-0972 RESOLUTION OF THE MEMBERS, In Long Beach, at the 19th Annual Membership Meeting of the California Preservation Foundation BE IT RESOLVED THAT: WHEREAS historic preservation should play a key role in lo. oaf efforts to conserve and enhance community character; and WHEREAS historic preservation, through state and federal tax benefits and through the use of the State Historical Building Code, can contribute greatly to community revitalization strategies; and WHEREAS over 150 communities in California have established some form of a preservation program as part of governmental commitment to the protection and enhancement of historic and cultural resources; and WHEREAS 30 units of local government in California are "Certified Local Governments," through the National Historic Preservation Act, joining a nationwide program which provides financial and technical assistance to preserve historic properties — buildings, structures, sites, neighborhoods and other places of importance in the community, state and nation; and WHEREAS all of these local programs operate through appointed boards, commissions or committees with expertise in the appropriate fields of historic preservation, and because the effective use of many of the state and federal incentives and protections depend upon the support of knowledgeable staff; and WHEREAS historic preservation programs provide citizens in the community with both necessary technical assistance and with the assurance that historic resource are important to the community; NOW, THEREFORE, the assembled members of the California Preservation Foundation urge City Councils and County Boards of Supervisors to: - recognize the critical importance of historic presorv-aticn in the ratenticn of community character and in any revitalization plans; - understand that appointed citizens boards, with staffing support, are cost effective and efficient ways to maximize the real and intangible benefits historic preservation provides; - resist the urge to make drastic staff cuts or to curtail or eliminate citizen preservation boards, commissions or committees because of current, short-term budget concerns; and - lock, instead, to reaffirm your commitment and seek creative ways to find the means to allow your program to continue to play its vital role in your community. _ We ask you to remember, that which is dismantled or demolished is not easily rebuilt l Passad by unanimous voice vote, June 5, 1993 BI #3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: APRIL 12, 1994 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 27728 (THE QUARRY AT LA QUINTA) APPLICANT: CRAIG BRYANT, WINCHESTER ASSET MANAGEMENT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR CUSTOM RESIDENCES LOCATION: THE QUARRY AT LA QUINTA SOUTH AND EAST OF LAKE CAHUILLA BACKGROUND: One of the conditions of this tentative tract map which was approved in July, 1993, was that architectural standards for the custom residences be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to final map recordation. The condition requires that these standards be included in the CC & R's. Furthermore, the standards are required to reflect the surrounding mountain and desert environment. The applicant has submitted the architectural guidelines for this project. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES: The applicant has submitted guidelines which are fairly comprehensive. They establish an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) which approves plans for the custom residences. The guidelines also include submittal requirements for plans, and provide guidelines and standards for the units and ancillary uses such as guest houses, patios, driveway paving, etc. Setback standards which exceed minimum City requirements are included in the guidelines. Standards for architectural materials and colors are also included as well as landscaping standards and a plant pallet. The overall theme of the guidelines seem to require that custom homes be compatible with the surrounding desert environment. ANALYSIS: Overall, staff feels that the guidelines are acceptable. There are several items staff feels need revision. Staff has noted needed revisions on the attached guidelines. The revisions recommended are handwritten and noted with a checkmark in the right margin. PCST.174 1 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the submitted guidelines provided the revisions as noted by staff are made. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Excerpt from Conditions of Approval 3. Architectural Guidelines for The Quarry at La Quinta PCST.174 u CASE No. PM 27727 TT 27728 LOCATION MAP W • h •e®•.oeees•oe• .r SCALE: 0: NTS Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27728, Amendment 11 July 26, 1993 7. If the tract is phased, tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department and Engineering Department prior to final map approval. 8. Applicant shall submit proposed street names with alternatives to the Planning and Development Department for approval prior to final map approval. —w-� 9. Design and architectural standards for the custom residences shall be submitted to the Planning Commission or Design Review Board for review and approval prior to final map recordation. All approved standards shall be included in the CC&R's. A copy of the CC&R's shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Standards to reflect the surrounding mountain & desert environment. The applicant shall notify the purchasers of lots that this is near an equestrian use area. This shall be either stated in the CC&R's or the real estate disclosure at time of sale. •10. Prior to recordation of the final tract map, the applicant/developer shall complete provisions for the Transfer of Development Rights for 29 dwelling units per Municipal Code Chapter 9.146, unless a change of zone which allows the proposed 65 dwelling units is approved. 11. Property lines and perimeter walls for all lots shall be located at the top of the graded slope for each lot. 12. The tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be recorded in a final map shall be 20,000 square feet. WALLS. FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING 13. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust cor,.trol. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: A. The use of irrigation during any construction activity. B. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded by undeveloped portions of the site. CONAPRVL.079 2 MAR > > 1994 ZC H I TECH U GUIDELINES FOR: A. Introduction In order to insure that that each site is developed in a manner which will be compatatible with the total environment in The Quarry at La Quinta, an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) has been established. It is the function of the ARC to encourage design excellence through strigent but reasonable standards for siting, architecture, building and landscaping, without inhibiting freedom of individual expression. It is not the intent that these design guidelines limit design to a single style or desert theme. However, the design of buildings and landscaping should consider the context of the visual and climatic environment in The Quarry at La Quinta. It is also important for the community as a whole, that individual designs be complimentary to one another. The recommendations, restrictions and instructions contained in these design guidelines are offered as a guide for the use in the design and construction process. Although the ARC will give consideratioin to any proposal submitted, owners are urged to secure the services of licensed architects, designers and engineers. B. Architectural Review Committee (ARC) 1. Authority and Responsibility The ARC shall have authority and responsibility for approving or rejecting plans for new construction and site improvements on all property covered by architectural approval deed restrictions prior to commencement of constuction. The ARC shall enumerate the documents, time and fees needed to permit adequate review. 1 2. The aim of the ARC is to promote careful design so that there is a harmony between buildings and the surrounding environment. The evaluation review will consider size, design, vier, effect on other property owners, disturbance of existing terrain, setback requirements, color, and other nes relevant factorwsi 11 bearoutinely not if i ed of inein the l the. i I ingAdjacent of an property owners application for ARC review. It is recognized that, with the passing of time, changes in building materials, methods of construction, design concepts and governmental regulations may occur. Therefore, it may desirable and/or necessary for the ARC to consider revisions to the form consider and nd adopt such modific The C shall retain the rights too ations as it deems appropriate. The review and approval by the ARC is for appearance and design compatibility only. The ARC assumes no responsibility for the structural and mechanical soundness of approved designs. All proposed construction systems must be in accordance with the requirements of all applicable Federal, State and local codes and regulations. Plan Submittal and Approval Process When an owner wishes to build, reconstruct, add onto or refinish the exterior of a structure on a property, or in any way affect the vegetation on his property, he shall follow the procedures ser forth in the design guidelines. The required landscaping and construction plans (SEE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS) shall be submitted in duplicate to the ARC at least thirty (30) days before the construction or alteration is scheduled to begin, and prior to submission to the City. The ARC welcomes Preliminary Design submittals for informal review and evaluation prior to the submission of final plan review. This procedure will often save the owner expense and delay, and will help to accelerate the final review process. Final plans are still required for final approval. out ong For the pupose fortrationg approval shatllwbehrequir required submissionnthe following: a. New construction or installations including dwelllings, accessory buildings, garages,fences, retaining/garden walls, steps, awnings, canopies, poles, trellises, patio decks, gazebos, spas, hot tubs, swimming pools, recreational apparatus, exterior lighting, sound and solar energy systems. b. Installation or revision of landscaping, hardscaping or surface improvements including ground covers, trees, shrubs, plants, irrigation or drainage systems, recreation areas or courts. C. Reconstruction, exterior additions, changes or alterations of any building, structure, fence, wall or other improvements including changes in color, material or exterior surfaces. Upon review of Final Design submittals, the owner will be notified in writing of the ARC action. Upon approval of the Final Design by the ARC, the owner may apply to the City of La Quinta for a building permit. Approval of any project by the ARC does not waive the necessity of obtaining the required City and County permits, nor obtaining a City or County permit does not waive the need for ARC approval. 3. Architectural Variances The ARC may grant to a grantee an architectural variance from any conditions contained herein, because of a design which, though desirable and compatible, is so unique in concept that is beyond the scope of these conditions and the rules hereunder. The grantee who applies for such a variance has the burden of proof and shall offer evidence in support of his application. An architectural variance shall not be granted unless the ARC finds that the variance is appropriate to the location, the lot and the neighborhood; the variance is consistent with the goals of the design guidelines; and, the variance will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Each applicant for a variance shall submit the following information: a. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant. b. Location of the subject property• supporting the C. A written explaination of the facts applicant's request for a architectural variance. d. All other information requested by the ARC to properly evaluate the application. R1 C. plan Submittal Requirements All architectural drawings shall be prepared and signed by an Architect licensed in the State of California except for additions and alterations. Patio covers and garden walls can be prepared by a landscape architect or structural engineer licensed in the State of California. All submissions must be in duplicate (2 sets) and include the following, per the Architectural Approval 1. Lot owners name. 2. Mailing address. g. Business and Residence Phone Numbers (with area codes). 4. Lot and Tract Number (site proposed for construction). 5. Address of Site. g. Name, Address, and Phone Number of Architect or owners Representative. 7. List or number of drawings enclosed. 8. Submission fee. D. Required Plan Submissions NOTE; ALL DRAWINGS TO BE To SCALE (1/4" = 1'-0" PREFERED FOR ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, BUT 1/S" = 1'-0" IS ACCEPTABLE) 1. Plot Plan a. Show lot lines accurately, including length, angles and amount of curve. uresl set sq b. Sidewalks slopesnand streettright-ofwalls, k ow all waycontingentto si � lot being developed. C. Show all dimensions on work to be considered, distances between existing and proposed work, and distances between proposed work and property lines. 2. Grading Plan a. Show contours, drainage and flow lines, finished grades. b. Changes of finished grade must be accompanied by a grading plan prepared by a registered civil or professional engineer or architect. 4 3. Floor Plans a. Indicate all, walls, columns, openings, and any condition or feature that will effect the exterior design of the building. b. Accurately dimension all items and parts of the plan and details, including decks, atriums, garages, accessory buildings and patio cover elements. C. Provide overall square foot total on all living space. d. Note all items on the exterior which can not be clearly noted on the exterior elevations. 4. Exterior Elevations a. Provide exterior elevations (all sides) of all proposed buildings. b. Indicate and dimension top plate lines, height of eaves, height to ridge and height of chimney elements. C. Accurately reflect the grading contours on the elevations. d. Accurately show all all window, door and trim patterns. e. Note all finish materials, colors and textures. 5. Roof Plans a. Show plan of all proposed roofs with slopes and pitches noted (refer to Roof Specification). b. Show materials of all proposed roofs. C. Dimension all eaves and overhangs. d. Roof top mechanical equiptment (including solar equiptment) and vent penetrations are subject to the approval of the ARC. s. Fences and Walls a. Drawings shall include specifications of materials, color, and height which should be shown in relation to adjacent ground elevations. 5 b. The plot Plan shall clearly indicate location of proposed construction including location and height of existing fences, walls, and structures. 7. Perspectives and Renderings Not required; however, this can help the committee to understand the proposal more easily. 8. Landscape Plan a. To include all fences and walls, arbors, trellises and gazebos. b. Identify all trees and plants by Common and Botanical names. c. Indicate irrigation. d. Include specification on slope stablilization if applicable. 9. Pool Plan (if available) a. To include plans for drainage, pool equiptment and construction in conformance with the standards. b. Show all walls, fences and gates enclosing pool equiptment. NOTE: The ARC will not be responsible for approving any swimming pool boundry enclosure requirements which may be required by City, County or State ordinances. 10. Exterior Colors and Finishes To include either material color sample board or an elevation sheet with color chips and materials attached with a clear indication as to which surface the color relates; as well as a sample of the finish roofing material. 11. Specifications Final Project Specification Manuals for all proposed work are requested but not required for final ARC approval. F 3. 4. 5. C. 7. S. 9. Clotheslines - Exterior clotheslines must be located in screened service yards and concealed from the view of neighboring properties and roadways. Drainage - Drainage will be in accordance with the the concept shown on final tract grading and improvement plans. It shall be the responsibility of the lot owner to insure that the system functions in accordance with these design documents. Exterior Colors - Exterior colors of buildings, fences/walls, and patio covers as first approved by the ARC for new construction, additions and/or alterations shall not be changed or altered without the approval of the ARC. Exterior Lighting - No exterior light whose light source is overly visible from a neighboring property or which produces a visual impact on traffic shall be installed. Fences and Walls - Existing community association fencing or walls shall not be modified by alteration, additions or color without the express written approval of the Association's Board of Directors. Fires - Exterior fires are not permitted except as may be outlined by the City of La Quinta local ordinances. Generally speaking, exterior fires are permissible only in cooking receptacles designed for that purpose. Garages - The number of garages required per dwelling unit shall be per City of La Quinta requirements. All garages doors shall be operated with automatic door openers. E. Restrictions General restrictions, including several architectural restrictions, apply to all residential properties in THE QUARRY AT LA QUINTA, and there will also be specific deed restrictions as well as Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may apply to each individual lot. Deed restrictions for each Iot have been recorded with the County of Riverside and are part of the ARC documents. Copies of such documents may be obtained from any title company or from the office of the County Cleric. The general restrictions are as follows: 1. Accessory Structures- (includes Guest Units and Pool House Structures) - Accessory buildings or structures, as defined by the local zoning ordinance, are intended for permanent or semi- permanent use and can not be constructed prior to the main residence without ARC approval and granting of a use permit by the City of La Quinta. Guest houses will be allowed on residential lots at The Quarry at La Quinta. Guest Units may be attached or detached. If the guest unit is detached, it is subject to the following conditions: A. The architecture must be reflective of the main residence. B. Kitchens are not allowed in the units. C. Square footage may not exceed 84% of the main house. D. The conditions of design of the main residence apply to guest units. Pool Buildings, cabanas, shade structures, changing areas and entertainment areas are allowed as part of the overall site development. Pool buildings may contain cooking facilities as well as BBQ'sv- The conditions of design of the main residence apply to the pool buildings. Pool equiptment shall be integral to the pool building. Pool equiptment shall be concealed and the noise buffered so not to affect neighboring properties. 2. Antennas - Subject to individual deed restrictions, no antennas, including dish antennas, may be installed that are visible from neighboring properties or roads without ARC approval. 7 10. Height Limitations - A. Flat roof houses shall not exceed 18 feet in height while it is suggested that wall heights adjacent to side setback lines not be full maximum height inorder to protect side yard view corridors of adjacent property owners. B. Pitched roof houses are limited to a maximum slope of 5/12 and shall not exceed 18 feet as measured to a point mid way between the highest ridge and the top plate. Maximum height ridge lines shall not extend to side setback lines as a gable roof form.=Y See Figure 1. C. Accessory structures shall not exceed 16 feet in height. D. Generally speaking, structures should not be designed to dominate the setting. See Figure 4. 11. Mail Boxes/Newspaper Receptacles - Standards and enclosures shall be subject to the control and the approval of the ABC (No metal mailboxes mounted solely on wood or metal posts). Placement of the receptacle must be next to the curb per U.S. Postal standards. 12. Maintenance - Each property owner is required to keep his land and all improvements in reasonable repair. 13. Parking - Each single family residential site must provide for an enclosed garage for at least two automobiles. Each residence must allow off-street parking of at least two automobiles. 14. Patio Structures, Trellises, Sunshades and Gazebos - Structures in this section shall be designed to continue and/or compliment architectural features of the dwelling. Heights may be varied subject to ARC control and approval. Structures are subject to setback requirements of individual lots. MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT'S 10 15. Paved Areas - All exterior paved areas exposed to public view from the street shall be one of the following: Stone pavers Wood decking Masonry Units Textured Concrete Exposed Aggregate Combinations of the above 16. Pets and Animals - No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any residential lot except dogs (leash laws apply), cats and other domestic pets not kept for any commercial purpose. 17. Roof Specifications - A. Special attention should be given to roof slopes which should be no greater than 5 and 12 pitch and ridges which shall not exceed the height of 18 feet as measured to a point mid way between the highest ridge and the elevation of the top plate. Upper roof ridge line shall be no higher than twenty four (24') feet from the approved pad elevation without approval of the ARC. High ridge lines should not be placed near side setback areas. B. False mansards or other architectural elements not an integral of the design will not be acceptable. C. Sloped roofs shall maintain as low a profile as possible, and shall be clad in Class A Fire Resistive materials that are in colors which blend with the adjacent natural surroundings. Fiberglass or asbestos roof materials are unacceptable; highly reflective metal roofing materials are not acceptable. B. Flat roofs must be composition and gravel in nature with a color which should blend with the surrounding terrain an which is acceptable to the ARC. E. Mechanical equiptment shall not be visible on the roof structure. F. Sheet metal work should be kept clean and simple with the minimum of exposed metal and generally should be painted to blend in with the surroundings. 11 G. Roof terraces are not encouraged but may be approved by the ARC if the area is fully screened from view from adjacent properties and roadways. 19. Refuse - All garbage and trash must be kept in animal -proof covered containers which are screened from view of neighboring properties and roadways. Owners are responsible for their own garbage and trash removal during construction aand thereafter. Dumping of garbage or trash anywhere in La Quinta is strictly prohibited. 19. Service Areas - These areas must be fully enclosed with a concealing wall not less than 5 feet or more than 6' in height. Such walls must be of materials and finish consistent with the principle structure on the site. 20. Setbacks - A. Building setbacks (distance from the property line to the nearest part of the structure) vary according to deed restrictions. Some lots have varying setbacks which relate to unusual property property features. Setback diagrams are enclosed in the architectural guideline package. B. No roofed or trellised structures separate from the building can be built in setback areas, i.e. gazebos. Any other free standing architectural or landscape elements designed within any setback area not covered in the above standard will be reviewed on an individual basis. C. Pools may not be located within fifteen feet (15') of the rear property line on lots with golf course frontage, and will not be allowed in side setbacks. No hardscaping will be allowed within ten feet (10') of the rear property line on golf course lots and this 10' area will serve as a landscape "transition zone" on fairway lots. See Figure S. D. Special lots will require setback modifications due to their size and configuration. Those lots are: 13, 24, 25, 33, 34, 17 and 19. E. Lot #3 will maintain a 30' rear setback from the North property line fronting the golf course, while the northwest property line setback shall be 20' due to special circumstances. 12 SETBACKS FIGURE 2 GOLF COURSE LOT s7nZCr (,07VVqr) bMWA=W -p 1 /010" %t �% f f f I/It. 40 J O6 za= r) HOTS #.q - F-T' 'Y'�+A0 S�-r"�� s 5 �� � ��If' �at- �r A�� '�` 13 F. Setback Chart as follows (See Figure 2): Standard Setbacks Golf Course Lots Special Lots Front (street) Rear 20' Side 15' Corner 25' 25' Front (street) Rear 30' Side 15' Corner 25' Note: See Figure 3 special five requirements. 21. Signs- 25' Front (street) 25' Rear 15' Side 12' Corner 20' for explaination and requirement of a foot (51) off set to front yard setback No sign shall be placed or kept on any private dwelling unit or private homesite other than signs stating the the name of the occupant, the address of the residence, or the name given to the residence by the owner of the residence. Signs shall not exceed dimensions of 6" by 18". Signs of any other kind on private homesites are subject to ARC approval (i.e. construction job signs). 22. Sundecks- No sundecks are permitted on or over any portion of a roof unless totally screened from adjacent properties and roadways and approved by the ARC. 23. Trailers, etc., as Lodging - Permanent house trailers, tents and recreational vehicles are prohibited as lodging. 24. Utilities - All trunk utility lines and pipes in this development are underground. Connections from trunk lines to individual structures must be underground to the exterior wall of the structure. All gas and electric meters must not be viewed from the roadway. 14 �S' MIA-1. P�5mftt 5+� ae. m e T (,OALors -r) r MGM •m FIGURE 3 VO N07-,fWltV 9�VT 14fA,V,"-fW e0v e::V-' 7MO AdWGWW XMol O h*e- 7D W -WT �iC5F� A6 ' /?�► .,:or " / oao P-6 AO-" 7AVy AKQ NOW vrPA�* /N V/&l aow,0494 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 4 15 25. Vegetation - Removal of any vegetation once established requires ARC approval. 26. Vehicles - No commercial vehicles, campers, trailers, boats or similar equiptment shall be parked (except for the purpose of loading or unloading), repaired, or stored on or near any residential lot. 27. Wells - Wells and other independent water systems are prohibited. 28. Lot Coverage - The residence shall be designed as to cover no more than 75% of the building area inside the established setback lines (See Figures 4 A 5). 29. Rinimun Dwelling Size - The minimum size of living space within the residence shall be 3500 square feet. 16 F. Building Guidelines/Material Standards All requirements noted within this section which are pertinent to the development of an owmer's lot shall be incorporated into the final plan submission in the form of general notes, details or drawings. 1. Exterior Building Walls - A. Materials allowed for the exterior cover of building walls shall be: wood masonry, stone, brick (concrete block units a maximum of 4" high) Stucco Combinations of the above B. The use of wood on a residential exterior should be carefully considered due to the climatic extremes. The use of wood on exterior walls as an accent element is encouraged since it adds warmth to any design, but it is a very high maintenance item. The use of wood as a primary exterior material on a house is discouraged. All exposed wood beams, trellis, etc. shall be glulam construction. C. Wood members are to be colored with semi --transparent or solid color stain or paint. D. Shingle siding may not be left to weather. If applied color is preferred, shingles shall be colored with semi -transparent stain. E. Masonry units may be of any size and type (concrete block 4" maximum height) and the finish color may be either integral or applied. F. Stucco may be machine or hand applied and colors may be integral or hand applied. G. Exterior cover material treatment used on the building walls shall be continuous and consistent on all elevations of the residence in order to achieve a uniform and complete architectural design statement. H. Exterior building wall colors should harmonize with the desert environment and surrounding residences and be in earth tones. No exterior materials shall have a high gloss or glare finish. 17 I. Exterior hardscape colors should be complementary to the exterior building color. 2. Window and door openings - It is highly suggested that a wall section be provided to describe the window and door detailing. Window openings within stucco wall surfaces shall be treated in one of the following ways and shall be consistently detailed around the entire house: A. Trim surrounds on all sides. B. Window recessed into a thickened wall. C. Windows projected forward of the wall plane. D. Any other design treatment which achieves scale, order proportion or depth of the opening. 3. Gutters and Downspouts - A. All gutters shall be concealed unless designed as a continuous architectural design feature. Exposed gutters used as a continuous architectural feature shall be colored to match or contrast with the surface to which attached. B. Down spouts may be exposed or concealed. Exposed downspouts shall be colored to match surface to which attached unless copper or anodized aluminum is used. C. It is recommended, but not required, that all eaves have gutters. 4. Fascias - Consideration should be given to the fascia as an important design element, as well as consideration to maintenance of the specified materials. 5. Roofs - Refer to Figure 1 for roof heights and other limitations, as well as the Restriction section describing Roofs. A. All roofing material will be non combustible. B. All sloped roofing material shall be one of the following: Slate Clay roof tile Concrete roof tile C. Metal roofs are discouraged but will be considered by the ARC if consistent with the design theme of the residence and are not reflective in nature. D. Mechanical equiptment shall not be visible on roofs. E. Extreme care should be given in selecting a color for the material used on flat roofs. Colors should blend with the surrounding terrain. 6. Walls and Fences - A. Six foot (6') high masonry block walls must be provided along residential property lines to enclose side and rear yards except along rear lot line within the rear setback of a fairway lot. See Figure 7 for exceptions B. Height of side walls is to be measured from the higher building pad height between the two lots. Property line garden walls are to be six feet (6') high (See Figure 6) . Any elevation differential between pads will require construction of a retaining wall beneath the 6' garden wall. C. All side yard property line walls and footings will be located on the property being developed unless another mutual arrangement is made by adjoining property owners. Top of footings must be placed below the lowest pad to either side of the wall and footings must be covered with a minimum of 12" of soil if the lower pad is less than 5' below the higher pad elevation (see Figure 7 for exceptions to side yard wall heights due to pad differential greater than 5 feet). D. Side yard property line walls must extend, at a minimum, from the front to the back of the residence, but can not be built closer than thirty feet (30') to the golf course frontage. 19 J I FIGURE 6 1,fA r hC C N7=AOP apt 1ppWgr uN& F o vVVAe ter' 077IM4 ry CAIAlcA . ,AAJAce-&t`r c.or Hvsr ho ,411tre. 20 p'_ $' PAO PlAccAe-ArnA .w 1w-. 6':149' P/4v 4p1N77,C ape A NIN `p�./g' P)*D 3" Miu/MuM CXA &AC*72! e�C�'AL ALTERNATIVES COMMON PROPERTY E. No wall, fence or hedge is permitted along the rear lot line adjoining a fairway unless approved by the ABC. F. If the rear face of a residence being developed is forty feet (40') or further from the (rear) golf course frontage, then the residential property line wall being developed with that house may be located thirty feet (30') to forty feet (40') from the golf course. No further side yard property line wall additions by adjoining neighbors who develope at a later date will be permitted, unless approved by the ARC. G. Side yard property line walls should be returned to the house when the distance between the house and the side yard property line wall becomes fifteen feet (15') or less. H. No freestanding or retaining walls may be placed in the rear yard setback areas (on golf course frontage lots) if they are visible to the golf course. Walls located in rear yard setback areas adjacent to the golf course must be bermed to completely hide them when viewed from the golf course. The maximum approved slope from the rear property line to the top of the wall is 4 to 1. Refer to Figure 8 for detail. I. All garden walls must be masonry and appropriately finished to match or complement the the house. The use of slumpstone for garden walls is acceptable with a fine sand plaster or sack finish. J. A thirty-six inch (36") minimum planting strip must be placed between side yard walls and any adjacent hardscape visible from the golf course or street. K. Garden wall gates must be substantially constructed. Consideration should be given to heavy duty steeljambs and gate frames. L. Lots with street frontage and pads higher than the street property line elevation shall construct walls at the top of the slope, but by no means shall a wall be constructed within any designated front setback area. M. No front walls shall extend into front setbacks and all wall designed in front yards shall be between,5-' to 6' in height., and shall return and terminate into side slopes were applicable (no step walls up slopes to adjacent common property line walls). 22 LANDSCAPE TRAN51 1 IUN LUNG F1GUKt 8 zcwG yc . 2=rv" Afe-46 7' FIGURE 9 Aw= I L lo / �w„v. o&Hs, 15 W(Al 7V P®o6 0 23 7. Patio Structures, Sunshades Trellises Gazebos and Sundecks- A. Structure or framework, including any overhead portions to be of wood construction only, with the exception of vertical support members which may be metal, but must be completely encased by wood or ARC approved masonry materials. B. Roofing materials shall match the roof materials of the dwelling. C. Metal frameworks are not acceptable. D. Roofing materials such as asphalt shingles, competition roofing, fiberglass (flat or corrugated), or plastic are not acceptable materials. 8. Roof dents - All roof vents to be colored to match the dominant roofing material. 9. Chimney Flashing - All chimney flashing to be colored to match integral or applied color of the chimney. 10. Sheet Metal - All exposed sheet metal to be colored to match related material or surface being flashed. 11. Wrought Iron - All wrought iron to be galvanized or bonderized prior to applied finish color. 12. Garages - Whenever possible garage doors should not face the street, but rather be at right angles to the street. Where this is not possible, adequate landscaping should be provided to soften the garage and its doors should be a design element complimentary to the design of the dwelling. See Figure 11. 13. Skylights - Skylights must be low profile and integrally designed into the structure and should not be obtrusive. 24 FIGURE 10 FIGURE 11 25 14. Solar Equiptment Solar eqiptment is encouraged but should be designed to integrate with the structure. All solar designs must not be obtrusive and must be approved by the ARC. 15. Bar-B-Ques- The ARC encourages the design of BBQ units that are integral with the design of the residence. Freestanding units should not be visible from the golf course. 16. Exterior Showers - Exterior shower enclosures or equiptment should not be exposed to the golf course or adjacent properties. 17. Mechanical Equiptment/Vents- Mechanical equiptment should not be visible and must not generate excessive noise levels. Plumbing vents should be ganged with a miinimum number of vents exposed to view from the golf course and street. 18. Lot Grading/Drainage- A. All lots have been finish graded to a masterplan approved by the City of La Quinta. B. Adjustments to the pad elevations are allowed subject to review and approval of the ARC. Regrading of the lots may not change the drainage flow of the site as designed in the original engineering. The purpose of grading changes is to allow for enhanced site access from the road, more interesting floor plans and site/landscape development. C. Regrading of lots will not be permitted if it affects directly adjacent lots or access roads. Any grading changes may be subject to approval of the City of La Quinta. D. If grade changes are proposed for a lot, grading plans are required as part of the submission to the ARC. 19. Service Area Enclosures - Provisions shall be made for the storage of trash and trash containers, maintenance equiptment and tools, air conditioning equiptment, irrigation equiptment and other mechanical equiptment. Walls should be at least five feet (5') high and shall not exceed six feet (6'). Situate the opening to service yards so that the interior of the service areas shall not be visible from the street, other properties or the golf course. 20. Mailboxes - Standard mailboxes on posts are unacceptable. Custom designed mailboxes which relate to the architecture of the house are encouraged an shall be subject to the approval of the ARC. 21. T.V. Satellite Dishes - Satellite dishes may be installed if they adjacent properties, roadways or from Extensive landscaping must be used so the the adjacent property owners or the golf are not visible from the golf coursek dish does not impact course. 27 G. Residential Security System — The Quarry at La Quinta will utilize the most sophisticated residential security system available today. In order to take advantage of this technology, each homeowner is required to connect their security system to the Quarry's Central Station equiptment. All residential systems eventually will be connected to and be compatible with this computer which will be the state of the art Radionics equiptment. The system will monitored 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. It is highly recommended that the architect and homeowner contact Sentrac Security for individual requirements for their residential home security system. A. Only Radionics equiptment shall be used in the residences. B. Sentrac Security shall be the sole provider of home security since they are the sole distribtor of the most current Radionic equiptment. C. Provide standard zoning of homes and how they will report to the Quarry's Central Station. D. Manual of security system to include: 1.) Program sheet 2.) Wire tag sheet E. Provide minimum of 16 zones for in house alarm system. F. Proper wiring and wire specifications shall be used. G. Sentrac Security should inspect system. 4.1 K LANDSCAPE GUDE34ES FOR THE QUARRY AT LA QUINTA Required Plan Subrraisslons & Landscape Plan e. General Design Concept The Quarry is located in an area of spectacular beauty. In keeping with the harmony of the naturalsurroundings, aund 9s olf course and common areas have been landscaped Flowering trees and material indigenous to the Coachella Valley. shrubs from other desert regions have been added in some areas to provide additional color. With only sixty-five custom homesites, it is important to blend the individual lot landscapes into the overall look like a natural part of and common areas so that the residences the setting. The following Landscape Guidelines have been prepared to assist you in this measure. b. Landscape Guidelines 1) Landscape plan shall be prepared by licensed Landscape Architect. 2) In keeping with a natural look, landscape be and to proper informal. Particular attention shouldP spacing of plant material to avoid the need for heavy pruning which eventually creates a folTnalized look. 3) Landscape boundaries between lots, should be soft and natural bordering lots and the go looking without abrupt edges or straight lines. 4) Landscape design should be sensitive to existing or approved landscaping on adjacent property and to the landscape character of the immediate neighborhood. 5) Use of plant material on The Quarry Approved Plant Palette is encouraged. a) To maintain continuityin thack from edge o street shall all plant material within a 25' se conform to The Quarry Approved Plant Palette. Some areas of lawn may be introduced to provide softness and contrast. 29 b) Landscaping within a 10' setback adjacent to the golf course shall be planted in conformance to the Quarry Approved Plant Palette to provide gentle transition from the golf course. This provision does not apply if the lot is higher than sight line from the golf course. c) Slopes on lots 4, 7-18 and 25-33 are presently planted with a temporary groundcover to stabilize the soil. Permanent planting of these slopes with drip irrigated trees and shrubs from the Quarry Approved Plant Palette is to be provided by each lot owner. Irrigation point of connection shall be converted from present common area mainline to private water meter. 6) Grading and Drainage a) Lots must drain by positive drainage flow wherever possible. b) All water generated on a lot must not flow onto adjacent lots or unapproved locations on the golf course. c) Roof downspouts must connect to underground drainage systems. d) Drywells shall be a minimum of four feet in diameter by eight feet deep and backfilled with a minimum of 9" of gravel along outside perimeter. All drywelis shall have removable grates to allow for periodic cleaning. 7) Plant materials must be as mature as possible at the time of installation. Trees (excepting fruit trees) to be minimum of 36" box; shrubs minimum 5 gal. At least three trees of 48" box or larger are required for each lot. 8) Use of multiple trunk trees —as opposed to single trunk "standards" --is encouraged in open areas of yards to add to natural look of the landscape. 9) Landscape design shall take into account view access for neighbors. Plans will be reviewed for accommodation of views across lot. 10) All headers between turf and shrub beds are to be concrete mow strips. 30 11) Where gravel is used as a groundcover, particulate diameter should be 3/80 or smaller. Color shall be tan or beige. 12) Exterior lighting: a) Light fixtures should be concealed as much as possible from street, adjacent neighbors and golf course. b) Light fixtures must be shielded and oriented to avoid glare. c) Light fixtures located in lawn areas must be below - grade "well" units. d) Colored lamps or filters will not be allowed. e) Post lights will not be permitted. 13) Drip irrigation shall be utilized in all areas other than turf, annual flower beds and steep slopes. 31 THE (QUARRY PLANT PALETTE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TREES: ACACIA FARNESIANA SWEET ACACIA ACACIA SALT(-'INA WILLOW ACACIA ACACIA STENOPHYLLA SHOESTRING ACACIA CERCIDIUM FLORIDUM BLUE PALO VERDE CERCIDIUM PRAECOX SONORAN PALO VERDE DAL EA SPINOSA SMOKE TREE OLNEYA TESOTA IRONWOOD PARKINSONIA ACULEATA MEXICAN PALO VERDE PITHECELLOBIUM FL.EXICAUL.E TEXAS EBONY PROSOPSIS A. 'COLORADO' CHIL.EAN MESQUITE PROSOPIS GLANDULOSA HONEY MESQUITE PALMS: WASHINGTONIA FIUFERA CALIFORNIA FAN PALM SHRUBS: BACCHARIS SAROTHRODES DESERT BROOM CASSIA ARTEMISIOIDES FEATHERY CASSIA CALUANDRA CAUFORNICA BAJA FAIRY DUSTER CAESALPINIA GILLIESII MEXICAN BIRD OF PARADISE CASSIA NEMOPHILA BUSHY SENNA CASSIA PHYLLODENIA CASSIA CAESALPINIA PULCHERRIMA RED BIRD OF PARADISE ENCELIA FARNIOSA BRITTLE BUSH ERIMOPHYLLA MACULATA 'PINK LADY' LARREA TRIDENTATA CREOSOTE BUSH LEUCOPHYLLUM SPECIES TEXAS RANGER RUELLIA PENINSULARIS RUELLIA SALVIA CLEAVLANDI SANTA ROSA SAGE SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS JOJOBA SALVIA G. 'SIERRA LINDA' SAGE 32 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME GROUNDCOVER: ANNUAL COLOR SEASONAL FLOWERS ACACIA R. 'DESERT CARPET' TRAILING ACACIA BACCHARIS P. 'CENTENNIAL' BACCHARIS BAT FACED CUPHEA CUPHEA LLAVEA CALYLOPHUS HARTWEGGI SIERRA SUN DROP DALEA FRUTESCENS 'SIERRA NEGRA' BLACK DALEA PROSTRATE INDIGO BUSH DALEA GREGII GAZANIA 'MITSUWA ORANGE' GAZANIA GAZANIA 'MITSUWA YELLOW AFRICAN DAISY PURPLE PROS.LANTANA LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS GREEN SANTOUNA SANTOUNA VIRENS VERBENA PERUVIANA VERBENA VERBENA RIGIDA HYBRID BERMUDA 'TIFWAY GREEN' VERBENA D - OVERSEED WITH POERENNIAL RYE DURING WNW CACTI & SUCCULENTS: AGAVE AMERICANA CENTURY PLANT AGAVE ATTENUATA AGAVE AGAVE GEMINIFLORA AGAVE AGAVE PARVIFLORA AGAVE OCTOPUS AGAVE AGAVE VILMORINIANA DASYURION WHEELERI DESERT SPOON ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS EUPHORBIA MILII CROWN OF THORNS FEROCACTUS WISLIZENII FISHHOOK BARREL FOUQUIERIA SPLENDENS OCOTILLO OPUNTIA BASILARIS BEAVERTAIL CACTUS OPUNTIA SP. 'SANTA RITA' PURPLE OPUNTIA YUCCA BACCATA BLUE YUCCA YUCCA ELATA SOAPTREE YUCCA YUCCA RIGIDA VINES: * BOUGAINVILLEA SPECIES BOUGAINVILLEA * CALLIANDRA INAEQUILATERA PINK POWDER PUFF GELSEMIUM SEMPERVIRENS CAROLINA JESSAMINE PYRACANTHA 'GRABERII' FIRETHORN * Frost Sensitive 33 I. relaxation and Addition of Covennants The ARC shall have the right and privilege to permit any Owner (without the consent of other Owners) to deviate from any or all of the building and/or landscape standards set forth herein, provided that such deviation is necessary in order to carry out the general proposed intent of the Standards. Any such permission of said Comittee shall be in writing and shall not constitute a waiver of the said Committee's powers of enforcement with respect to any of the Standards as to any other part or parcel of the properties. J. Conditions of Approval A. B. C. D. E. The following shall be conditions of any approval and shall be incorporated by reference only on the approved plans or Committee's letter of approval, and it shall be the responsibility of the owner of the residence on which an approval was granted to insure these conditions are enforced upon all persons or firms used, engaged or employed in carrying out any operation or trade: Signs - No signs shall be displayed on any residence, other than those signs permitted in the CC&Rs. Hours of Operation - All operations shall be carried out between 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday thru Friday during the season (November 1 thru June). Off season operation hours shall be 6:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday thru Friday. No exterior construction shall take r3lace on weekends. Temporary Structure - No structure of a temporary character shall be used on any residential lot with the exception of a temporary construction office. Unsightly Items - All rubbish, debris and/or unsightly material or objects of any kind shall be regularly removed from the residence and shall not be allowed to accumulate thereon. Noise - No radios, and no early morning or late evening noise shall be permitted (see P-III-2 of the CC&Rs). 34