RES-9294 Denying Appeal No. 466RESOLUTION NO. 9294
r
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE DENYING APPEAL NO. 466
AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY VARIANCE
NO. 2068-99 REGARDING
A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER
AND ANTENNAS EXCEEDING THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT UPON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 526 WEST BLUERIDGE
AVENUE.Appeal No.
466 Variance
2068-99 Applicant and Appellant: Western
Technical
Services RECITALS:WHEREAS, on October 4, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City
of Orange conducted a public hearing as required by law to consider an application for Variance
No. 2068-99, submitted by Western Technical Services, requesting a telecommunications
tower and antennas to exceed the maximum permitted height by 75
feet; and WHEREAS, the subject property is commonly known as 526 West
Blueridge Avenue and is more particularly described
as follows:PARCEL NO. 12, IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 162,
PAGES 15 AND 16, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
ORANGE
COUNTY;and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 64-99, the Planning Commission
denied Variance No.2068-99
with
certain fmdings; and r'WHEREAS, Appeal No. 466 was timely filed by
the appellant,
Western Technical Services; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the appeal of appellant
by conducting a public hearing on
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council heard the testimony of appellant
and one member of the public, and considered documentary evidence presented.NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orange that
the substantial evidence presented leads to the decision that Appeal No. 466 is denied and Variance
No. 2068-99 is denied. Such denial is based on the following reasons:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. Negative Declaration 1616-99 cannot be approved because there are potentially
significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, with regard to visual aesthetics and possible
interference with public safety radio
transmissions.3. The required findings for the approval of a variance, per Orange Municipal Code
Section 17.10.040.E and Section 56906 of the California Government Code, cannot be found
because there are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size,
shape,topography, location or
surroundings.4. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance does not deprive the subject property
of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and other identical zone
classification.5. The variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege for the applicant
inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the zone on which the subject property is
located.ADOPTED the 13th day of June,
2000.
Reso.No.9294 2 MEB
ATfEST:
I"""
City Clerk of the City of Orange
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of June, 2000, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS: MURPHY, SLATER, COONTZ, SPURGEON, ALVAREZ
COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
d-~~iJtd-C4<
r Cassandra J. Cat , City Clerk of the City of
Orange
f"""3 Reso.No.