RES-10624 Denying Conditional Use Permit 2823-11RESOLUTION NO. 10624
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE UPHOLDING APPEAL NO. 529-
11 AND DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2823 -11, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4564-
11 AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 657 -11
WHICH SOUGHT TO ALLOW THE
INSTALLATION OF A 51 -FOOT WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS MONO -PALM ANTENNA
AND RELATED EQUIPMENT FACILITIES
LOCATED AT 809 S. ESPLANADE STREET.
APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit 2823 -11, Design Review Committee No. 4564-
11 and Minor Site Plan Review No. 657 -11 (hereafter, "the Project ") was filed by the
Applicant Verizon Wireless in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Project was processed in the time and manner prescribed by federal,
state and local law; and
WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303
Class 3 — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2011, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning
Commission reviewed the Project and recommended approval thereof by a 4 -0 vote; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was duly filed in
accordance with Orange Municipal Code Section 17.08.050; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly advertised public hearing on
December 13, 2011, for the purpose of considering the Project; and
WHEREAS, as further set forth in this Resolution, the City Council has determined
to uphold Appeal No. 529 -11 and deny the requested Project, finding that substantial
evidence exists that the mono -palm antenna does not preserve the aesthetic character of the
community and causes deterioration of aesthetics for the area in which it is proposed to be
located.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE that Appeal No. 529 -11 shall be upheld and that the Project to allow
the construction of a 51 -foot mono -palm antenna shall be denied and such denial is supported
by substantial evidence contained in the record before the City Council.
SECTION I — FINDINGS
1. In order to grant a Wireless Communication Facility Conditional Use Permit
CUP "), the Orange Municipal Code requires, among other things, that the proposed CUP
be: (1) granted only if the wireless communication facility can be installed and operated in a
manner that preserves the aesthetic character of the portion of the community in which it is
located; (2) not granted if it will cause deterioration of aesthetics for the area in which it is
located; and (3) granted if it can be found that the distance separation standards between
ground- mounted wireless communication facilities precludes the wireless supplier from
providing service. The City Council finds that as proposed, the mono -palm antenna does not
fulfill these CUP standards for the following reasons:
a. Approximately 17 speakers spoke against the proposed mono -palm antenna
and none in favor. Those in opposition expressed their opinion that the
antenna was too tall and would tower above all other structures in the
neighborhood by at least 20 feet, would be a visual blight from their
residences, was inadequately screened and would harm property values.
b. The Applicant addressed the appeal by stating the height of the antenna was
dictated by the needs determined by the RF engineers. He stated that existing
coverage in the area was adequate, however the site was needed to assist
growing capacity demands of nearby sites. With regard to aesthetics the
microwave dishes had been deleted from the Project and the design had been
significantly improved from the original submission due to input from the
Design Review Committee. Notwithstanding, the Applicant did admit that
mono -palm antennas can be visually intrusive. The Applicant also admitted
that the site emits a constant noise level of about 60 decibels ( "dbs "), and may
be higher when the backup generator is used once a month, on average.
C. The City Council found that the Project failed to meet the required findings
for a CUP. The mono -palm was designed to be 51 feet in height and screened
by two live palm trees 30 to 35 feet in height. It would be placed immediately
adjacent to a church building approximately 25 feet in height, in a residential
zone district where the building height may not exceed 32 feet. As such, the
mono -palm would exceed everything around it by nearly 20 feet in height.
The excessive height of the artificial tree was glaringly conspicuous because it
does not fit in the area. The attempt to screen the mono -palm was
unsuccessful and makes the area look cluttered. In the case of residences in
every direction, the antenna would starkly protrude into the skyline as
residents and visitors exited the front door. While noting that the mono -palm
design in and of itself provides screening of the antenna, the design was not
2
shown to be so sophisticated that it would be mistaken as a real tree, even
from a distance. Coupled with its surroundings, the artificial tree will tower
noticeably above everything else. As such, the City Council found that the
excessive height and artificial nature of the mono -palm causes visual
deterioration and does not preserve the aesthetic character of the community
in which it is located.
d. Additionally, evidence was introduced that the ground mounted equipment
would be housed in an industrial looking masonry block structure. The
equipment would be located immediately adjacent to classroom use and emit a
constant 60 dbs of noise. The structure for the support equipment would
encroach on the playground portion of the school and have an open roof
design that may attract children or playground equipment, such as balls. Due
to the industrial design of the support structure, constant emission of noise
and location immediately adjacent to the school the City Council found that
the wireless communication facility could not be installed and operated in a
manner that preserves the aesthetic character of the portion of the community
in which it is located.
e. For the reasons stated above and incorporated herein by reference, the City
Council also found that the Project would create visual blight for those that
live, drive and walk in the area. Thus, the CUP is also denied because it
would cause deterioration of aesthetics for the area in which it is located.
f. Finally, evidence was introduced into the record by the Appellant that based
on an informal study testing the signal strength for Verizon Wireless, good to
excellent coverage exists in and around the Project area. The Appellant also
introduced evidence from the Verizon Wireless website
www.verizonwireless.com ) showing that Verizon Wireless was rated number
one in overall ratings for coverage, when compared to its competitors in the
Project area. The Applicant admitted that coverage was adequate in the area.
As such, denial of the CUP would not preclude Verizon Wireless from
providing service in the Project area.
g. It should be noted that although there was some lay testimony of detrimental
health effects from wireless antennas, based on the advice of the City
Attorney, the City Council did not consider alleged RF health effects in
denying the Project.
2. The City Council based its decision on evidence in the record that the Project
was not consistent with the goals and policies stated in the City's General Plan. The City
Council found that the Project conflicted with existing development and was insensitive to
the use, scale and character of existing development for the following reasons:
a. The proposed mono -palm was 51 feet in height, at least 20 feet higher than
surrounding trees and structures in the area. In addition to the height, the
3
design of the mono -palm looked fake and artificial and the masonry block
equipment enclosure looked heavily industrial in design. Both the mono -palm
and equipment enclosure were poorly screened and visible to residential
properties from all sides. Given the size, location and design the Project
conflicted with existing residential development as it was out of context and
clearly did not fit in a residential neighborhood.
b. As stated above, the proposed mono -palm exceeds virtually everything in its
immediate surroundings by at least 20 feet. The design of both the mono -
palm and masonry block equipment enclosure is unavoidably industrial in
nature. The Project will emit approximately 60 db's of constant noise while
in use, which at times may be higher when the backup generator is tested or in
use. This level of noise exceeds the average noise level consistent with a
residential neighborhood. Notwithstanding the fact that the Project is located
immediately adjacent to a church with a school use, its excessive size and
commercial use, and in particular the noise emissions, are insensitive to the
use, scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
3. The City Council finds and determines that the Project does not meet the
required findings from the Design Review Committee. To establish those findings the
project design must uphold community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent,
integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design
standards and their required findings. For the reasons stated above, and incorporated herein
by reference, the City Council finds that the Project design detracts aesthetically from the
residential neighborhood in which it is located due to its excessive height, in comparison to
the surrounding structures, and its industrial design. In addition the Project creates visual
blight and the required findings necessary to approve the aforementioned CUP cannot be
made for the reasons stated above. As such, the Project will not uphold the neighborhood
community aesthetics and Design Review Committee No. 4564 -11 is hereby denied.
SECTION 2 — ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The CUP is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3 — New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
ADOPTED this 10 day of January, 2012.
4
ATTEST:
7
Mary E. City Cle i Orange
I, MARY E. MURPHY, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do 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 10 day of January, 2012, by the
following vote:
AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS:Whitaker, Smith, Cavecche, Dumitru, Bilodeau
NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS:None
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS:None
ABSTAIN:COUNCILMEMBERS:None
Mary . urp , City Clerk," ity o ge