Loading...
CC RES 2000-053RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 207 WITH PREJUDICE, FOR THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE OF EXISTING ANTENNAE ON AN EXISTING ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE, LOCATED AT 44 OCEANAIRE DRIVE IN THE DEL CERRO NEIGHBORHOOD WHEREAS, on January 8, 1990, the applicant/appellant, Mark Abrams, received approval of an application for Site Plan Review No. 5322 to permit the construction of a 40- foot -tall amateur radio antenna support structure and array on his property at 44 Oceanaire Drive in the Del Cerro neighborhood, which could be used only for amateur radio communications and was conditioned expressly to exclude commercial operations; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 1998, Mr. Abrams received approval of an application for Site Plan Review No. 8017 to permit the construction of a second, similar amateur radio antenna support structure and array on the same property; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 1998, the City's approval of Site Plan Review No. 8017 was appealed to the Planning Commission by Karyl Newton, the owner of the adjacent property at 46 Oceanaire Drive; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal of Site Plan Review No. 8017, Mr. Abrams admitted that there was at least one antenna on the existing support structure and array that was used for commercial purposes, and evidence was also presented to the Planning Commission which confirmed this commercial use and demonstrated that the existing antenna support structure and array was taller than forty feet (40'0 "); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the appeal of Site Plan Review No. 8017 was continued to a date certain, and was subsequently tabled by the imposition of a moratorium on applications for second antenna support structures, and the application subsequently was voided by the enactment of revisions to the City's antenna regulations; and WHEREAS, the City investigated the allegations regarding the height of the existing antenna support structure and array and found that Building Permit No. 9827 had been erroneously issued and finaled in 1990 to allow the antenna support structure and array to exceed the 40 -foot height limit; and WHEREAS, the City obtained warrants from the court and retained an expert in the field of radio transmissions, Dr. Henry Richter, to monitor transmissions from the site in connection with an investigation of the allegations regarding commercial use of the existing antennae and found that the allegations were valid. Subsequently, on June 29, 1999, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted the City's motion for a preliminary injunction, and on September 13, 1999, the court issued its written order, preventing Mr. Abrams from using the antennae for commercial purposes unless and until the City approved a conditional use permit for that use; and WHEREAS, Section 17.76.020(A) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires an individual to obtain a conditional use permit to install or operate a commercial antenna within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ( "City "). Section 17.96.090 defines the term "commercial antenna" as follows: "'Commercial Antenna' means all antennas, parabolic dishes, relay towers and antenna support structures used for the transmission or reception of radio, television and communication signals for commercial purposes. For the purpose of this definition, `commercial purposes' shall mean communications for hire or material compensation, or the use of commercial frequencies, as these terms are defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). `Commercial antennas' shall not include antennas owned or operated by governmental agencies; and microcell cellular antennas, owned and operated by state licensed cellular telephone utility companies, located on existing utility poles within the public right -of- way." Under these provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the applicant, Mr. Abrams, was required to obtain a conditional use permit from the City to use his existing antennae and antenna support structure to broadcast on commercial frequencies, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC "); and WHEREAS, on July 12, 1999, September 30, 1999, and January 21, 2000, Mr. Abrams submitted applications and supplemental information for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720 to allow the commercial use of certain of the existing antennae on the existing antenna support structure on his property in the Del Cerro neighborhood; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2000, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and Environmental Assessment No. 720 were deemed complete by Staff; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ( "CEQA "), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 could result in a significant adverse effect Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 2 of 13 upon the environment unless mitigation measures were imposed and, therefore, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2000, and May 9, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2000 -12, thereby denying the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 with prejudice; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2000, within the 15 -day appeal period prescribed by Section 17.80.070 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, Mr. Abrams appealed the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2000, and July 5, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing was closed on July 5, 2000, the applicant objected to some of the information that had been submitted to the City Council during the public hearing and also sought to present additional information to the City Council, even though the public hearing already had been closed; and WHEREAS, in order to address Mr. Abrams' concerns, on July 18, 2000, the City Council directed staff to re- notice the public hearing so that it could be re- opened and any additional information that is relevant to the application could be considered by the City Council prior to making a decision on the application; and WHEREAS, the re- opened public hearing was held on August 15, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence that had not been presented previously to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed commercial use because Sections 17.76.020(A)(5) and 17.76.020(A)(8) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code require that the proposed commercial use "have Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 3 of 13 the least visual impact on the environment" and provide landscaping and screening to "screen and buffer towers, accessory uses and stored equipment," respectively, but the existing tower is sited and designed to take maximum advantage of the elevation and topography, and not to minimize its visual impacts on adjacent properties. If the subject property were larger so that the tower could be located further from adjacent residences and rights -of -way, the increased distance might have the effect of screening and buffering the visual impacts of the existing tower. Attempting to screen the existing tower and antennae with foliage would not be effective because most surrounding properties are at the same elevation or only slightly higher than the subject property. Therefore, given the constraints of the subject property, it is not reasonably possible to reduce the visual impacts of the existing tower and antennae without modifying its height, location and /or configuration. Section 2: In response to a question that was posed during the public hearing on the appeal, the applicant, Mr. Abrams, stated that he would not consider any alteration or reduction of the height, size, configuration or location of the existing tower or any of the antennae located thereon in order to reduce the visual and aesthetic impacts of the antenna tower upon adjacent properties or the surrounding neighborhood. On the other hand, the City's expert, Dr. Richter, testified that in his professional opinion, if the height of the applicant's antenna support structure and the antennas located thereon were reduced from the current height of fifty -two and one -half feet to forty feet, there would not be an appreciable change in the applicant's ability to transmit radio signals. Dr. Richter further opined that it was possible to reduce the overall mass of the antenna structure and the number of antennae located thereon and still allow Mr. Abrams to transmit both on commercial and amateur frequencies from his property at 44 Oceanaire Drive. Section 3: The approval of the subject commercial use at this specific location will result in significant adverse effects on adjacent properties and the permitted use thereof because the commercial use of some of the antennae constitutes an intensification of the use of the antennae, and this intensification of use financially benefits the applicant and his business while causing negative visual impacts from the location, height and size of the antenna tower upon surrounding residential properties. A. B. The application that was approved by the City in 1990 was for an amateur antenna structure that was expressly conditioned not to be used for commercial purposes and not to exceed forty feet in height, and the applicant expressly agreed to those conditions. Notwithstanding those conditions, the antenna structure was constructed at a height of fifty -two and one -half feet. In addition, when the City's expert, Dr. Henry Richter, monitored radio transmissions from the subject property in 1999, pursuant to a warrant issued by the court to the City, Dr. Richter detected transmissions on at least three Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 4 of 13 commercial frequencies that had been licensed previously by the FCC to be transmitted from the subject property. Mr. Abrams testified that those transmissions were sent from portable tripod antennas that were located on the ground, behind the rear wall of the subject property and not from the existing structure that had been permitted by the City, and that due to their location behind the wall, they did not function well. However, the City Council cannot determine the accuracy of the applicant's testimony. The City's expert, Dr. Richter, testified that while he was monitoring the site, he could clearly see the rear wall of the property, which he photographed, and he did not observe any tripod antennas that exceeded the height of the rear wall so that the wall would not have interfered with the commercial transmissions from the alleged portable antennas. Mr. Abrams' application demonstrates that the three tallest antennae that are located on the uppermost portion of the antenna support structure would accommodate commercial use, as would many of the other antennae that are located elsewhere on the antenna support structure. (See also, paragraph 1 of Abrams' letter dated August 11, 2000.) Thus, it appears that one of the purposes of the existing antenna structure at its current height of fifty -two and a half feet was to accommodate the commercial use of some of the antennae that are located on the tower, even though the permit issued by the City in 1990 specifically provided that no commercial transmissions could occur and that the height of the antenna structure could not exceed forty feet. Currently, the tower is visually prominent within the neighborhood, and due to its height, configuration and close proximity to surrounding residences and lack of screening or buffers, it has an adverse impact upon adjacent properties. The applicant testified that he would not be willing to modify the antenna tower or any of the antennae located thereon to reduce the adverse aesthetic and visual impacts. Therefore, although the approval of the proposed use would not create new adverse visual impacts, it would perpetuate existing adverse visual impacts in support of a use that disproportionately benefits the commercial interests of the applicant to the detriment of the immediately surrounding neighborhood. In addition to the visual impacts of the existing antennae and tower, the establishment of a commercial antenna of this size and scale in the Del Cerro neighborhood would establish precedent for, and contribute to, adverse cumulative visual impacts due to future proposals for similar projects. Such proposals are likely given the neighborhood's elevation, topography and unique geographic setting and would have significant adverse cumulative effects upon neighborhood aesthetics and residential property values. Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 5 of 13 Section 4: The proposed commercial use of the antennae and the tower is contrary to the City's General Plan, which contains the following goals and policies: It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment; to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods; and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community. [Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, Urban Environment Element, Activity Area Goals (p. 56)] The City shall discourage industrial and major commercial activities due to the terrain and environmental characteristics of the City. Commercial development shall be carefully and strictly controlled, and limited to consideration of convenience or neighborhood service facilities. [Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, Urban Environment Element, Activity Area Goals (p. 56)] It shall be a goal of the City to ensure adequate public utilities and communications services to all residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment. [Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, Urban Environment Element, Infrastructure Goals (p. 100)] Require adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impacts of many infrastructure facilities and networks. [Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, Urban Environment Element, Infrastructure Policy No. 8 (p. 138)] Although these goals and policies acknowledge the need for commercial development and the provision of communications services for the City's residents, they also call upon the City to balance these community needs with the preservation of the quality of the City's residential neighborhoods. The City has attempted to balance these objectives by encouraging the installation of commercial antennae in non - single - family residential areas, and the utilization of screening techniques to camouflage the appearance of commercial antennae to the maximum extent practicable, especially in residential zones. As a result, most commercial antennae previously approved by the City have been proposed for properties that are not zoned or used for single - family residential purposes, or have employed screening techniques to fully (or at least partially) mask the appearance of the antennae. As is discussed in the Staff report that was prepared for the July 5, 2000 City Council meeting, the City has approved two conditional use permits for the construction of antennae in residential zones which are being used for commercial transmissions. In both Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 6 of 13 cases, the antennae were located in a manner that was unobtrusive and did not cause adverse visual and aesthetic impacts upon surrounding residential properties. In this case, the subject property and surrounding neighborhood are designated Residential, 1 -2 DU /acre in the City's General Plan, which is a land use designation intended to accommodate low- density neighborhoods of detached, single - family homes and related accessory uses and structures. The use of the existing antenna support structure and array for amateur purposes is an accessory use to the primary use of the property as a single - family residence, but the proposed commercial use of some of the existing antennae constitutes an intensification of the use of the tower such that the use of the antenna support structure and array is no longer clearly subordinate to the primary permitted use of the subject property. Because this application involves approval of the commercial use of the antennae, which previously was conducted in violation of the Municipal Code, it cannot be determined with certainty how many of the existing antennae were placed on the site for the commercial use and how many were used solely for amateur purposes in accordance with the prior City approval. In addition, unlike the other two antenna structures that were approved for commercial use in residential areas, the size and configuration of the current site and the close proximity of the tower to surrounding residences provides little or no opportunity for effective visual screening and buffering of the tower, which is inconsistent with the General Plan goals and policies discussed in this section. Section 5: There is at least one, and may be additional locations within the City that can accommodate the applicant's proposed commercial transmissions. The applicant has testified that although he currently is using a private structure located at the FAA's San Pedro Hill site, that site is no longer available to him, because the operator of the area where the commercial antennae are located has asked him to remove his equipment. Mr. Abrams also testified that the County of Los Angeles' antenna site on Crestridge Road is not available to him. Mr. Abrams claims that these are the most technically optimal locations to which he could relocate his existing facilities. Mr. Abrams initially testified that the location at 44 Oceanaire Drive is the only location in the City that is available for his commercial use. He later testified that there are other locations in the City where he could locate his commercial antenna equipment, but that it would be cost - prohibitive for him to do so, due to the additional height of the antenna support structure that would be needed. He stated that there is no location within the City, including the subject site, that would provide the ability to transmit to all areas of the City and the Palos Verdes Peninsula, because the topography of the area prevents complete coverage from any one location. He submitted evidence that there are several locations where he could actually improve the coverage of his transmissions, if an antenna support structure of approximately two hundred feet or more were constructed. Mr. Abrams did not present testimony regarding the height of the antenna structures that would be required at Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 7 of 13 the other locations in order to duplicate the degree of coverage that he presently has at the subject property. The City requested that its expert, Dr. Richter, conduct studies of several different sites within the City to determine if any of the sites could be used by the applicant in place of the current location at 44 Oceanaire Drive. Dr. Richter ran propagation studies from Mr. Abrams' property and from four other properties in the City. Dr. Richter's studies demonstrated that there is at least one alternative site in the City, at the St. John Fisher Church, located on Crest Road, where the applicant's ability to transmit would be increased above the level of coverage from the Oceanaire Drive site, if an eighty -foot antenna support structure were constructed. Dr. Richter disagrees with the conclusions of Mr. Abrams' expert that a 200 -foot antenna would be required at the church site in order to have adequate coverage and has concluded that an eighty -foot antenna would provide adequate transmission coverage on the south side of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and would provide improved coverage to the north. It is the opinion of City Staff that if an eighty -foot antenna were located on the church property, it probably would not require a setback variance or demolition of existing structures. The pastor of the St. John Fisher Church submitted a letter to the City, dated July 3, 2000, stating that the Church was interested in allowing an antenna support structure on that property, either adjacent to the existing maintenance building or incorporated within a structure that is designed as a church bell tower. Mr. Abrams testified that he had met with representatives of the church, and that they had indicated a willingness to explore the possible construction of an antenna tower on the church property. Mr. Abrams submitted a copy of a 1956 deed restriction on that site that he alleges will prevent the church property from being used for this purpose. However, the deed restriction states that it expired as of January 1, 1982. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record that refutes the applicant's claim that there are no other viable alternate sites available to him, if the current application is denied. Instead, it appears that there is at least one alternate site that could accommodate the applicant's proposed commercial use that would have fewer or no adverse impacts on surrounding properties than the proposed location at 44 Oceanaire Drive. Section 6: The proposed project is not consistent with the City's Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines. The site and configuration of the proposed project is located conspicuously on an existing single - family residence. The size and scale of the proposed use suggests that it is not clearly ancillary to the primary permitted use of the site as a single - family residence (Guideline No. 2). Although the Guidelines encourage co- location of commercial antennae on existing towers (Guideline No. 3), the future placement of additional commercial antennae at this site probably would increase the size and /or configuration of the existing antenna structure and would intensify Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 8 of 13 the commercial use of the site, which would not be consistent with the general intent of the Guidelines to balance the need to provide wireless communications coverage with the need to maintain the quality of life for residents. In addition, although the existing tower does not impair protected views, as defined in the City's Development Code, it is highly visible in the neighborhood immediately surrounding the subject property (Guideline No. 4). The approval of the project as currently proposed would disproportionately benefit the applicant's commercial interests, while causing a significant adverse aesthetic impact upon the surrounding residential neighborhood and the general public, resulting in an imbalance of private versus public costs and benefits (Guideline No. 5). Finally, the size and scale of the proposed project and its close proximity to surrounding residents precludes effective visual screening of the existing antenna support structure and array (Guideline No. 9), since the applicant has testified that he is not willing to modify the height or configuration of the existing antenna support structure or the antennae that are located on the structure. Section 7: The denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 is consistent with the local zoning authority reserved to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)) ( "the Act ") for the following reasons: A. The denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 207 "[does] not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services...and [does] not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsections (B)(i)(I) and (II)), because: 1. The applicant has admitted that not all of the commercial services that he provides are within the scope of the Act and that no one site within the City, including the site at 44 Oceanaire Drive, can provide complete transmission coverage throughout the entire City or the Palos Verdes Peninsula. 2. Mr. Abrams has refused to consider reducing the size or configuration of his existing antenna support structure to make it more compatible with the surrounding residential area or to consider transmitting from smaller antennas at multiple locations within the City. Despite his refusal to mitigate the adverse aesthetic impacts of the antenna support structure upon the surrounding residential neighborhood, Mr. Abrams nevertheless erroneously contends that under the Act, he is entitled to commercial use of the structure that he already constructed. 3. In reviewing all of the applications to provide personal wireless services within the City, the City has applied consistently its Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 9 of 13 regulations to these facilities so as to approve facilities that are compatible with surrounding uses and to modify or deny applications that will have adverse visual and aesthetic impacts upon surrounding properties. The instant application is being denied because it will result in adverse visual and aesthetic impacts upon adjacent properties, and the applicant has refused to alter the antenna structure to eliminate those impacts. Accordingly, the denial of the proposed project does not unreasonably discriminate between the applicant's project and that of any other service provider. 4. The denial of this specific proposal does not prohibit the applicant from providing wireless communications services because the applicant still has the ability to propose the relocation of these services to another site or sites that meet all of the required findings for approval by the City. The City has previously approved applications for commercial antennae for a variety of commercial wireless services and service providers, including applications for properties that were zoned or used for single - family residential purposes. Accordingly, the denial of this particular application also does not result in a ban or prohibition of, or have the effect of prohibiting, the placement of these types of facilities within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 5. The denial of this application does not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services because Mr. Abrams is able to transmit to a few areas within the City from commercial antennas that are located outside of the City, without the existing antenna at 44 Oceanaire Drive, although he has testified that there will be a significant gap in the coverage he provides if the application to utilize the Oceanaire property is not approved. (Mr. Abrams testified that there are gaps in coverage even if this application is approved.) In addition, denial of the application to broadcast commercially from 44 Oceanaire does not prevent Mr. Abrams from applying to broadcast commercially from one or more other locations in the City, including from the St. John Fisher church site. Meanwhile, there are cellular antennas and other antennas located within the City that currently provide personal wireless services to the public throughout most of the City and the Palos Verdes Peninsula from facilities that are not causing the Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 10 of 13 adverse visual and aesthetic impacts that will be caused by the instant application. 6. Mr. Abrams' proposal to use the existing antenna tower located at his residence for commercial use is the least expensive, most cost effective means for him to provide commercial service, since he will not have to pay anyone to use a different site that he does not own, and he will be able to charge others who use that location from which to broadcast their commercial signals. Mr. Abrams and his attorneys contend that the City has no discretion under the Act to deny the instant application. However, this interpretation is contrary to the express language of Section 704 of the Act, which allows local governmental entities to make decisions regarding the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under the Act, Mr. Abrams is not entitled to the precise height, configuration and location of the antenna support structure that he has designed for the particular technology that he has chosen to utilize to broadcast commercially, especially since he has refused to modify his existing antenna support structure or the technology that he uses to eliminate the adverse aesthetic impacts upon adjacent properties. Also, the fact that Mr. Abrams received City approval for an amateur radio antenna structure, which was expressly conditioned not to be used for commercial purposes, and then broadcast commercially from his property without having obtained the required conditional use permit from the City, also does not entitle him to approval under the Act or prevent the City from denying the application for a conditional use permit to broadcast commercially. The application for this Conditional Use Permit was deemed complete by City Staff, on January 31, 2000. The City has acted on both the applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 and this appeal "within a reasonable period of time after the request [was] duly filed with [the City], taking into account the nature and scope of such request" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(ii)). This application and the appeal have been processed by the City in a timely fashion and in accordance with the time lines established by the State Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA, and the Telecommunications Act. Indeed, the most recent delay in adopting this resolution was caused primarily by Mr. Abrams' request to augment the record, which could not have been accomplished without re- noticing and re- Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 11 of 13 C. D. opening the public hearing. The timing for providing notice of the hearing to the newspaper required an additional delay of twenty -eight days. The decision to deny the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207 "[is] in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(iii)). This Resolution, along with P.C. Resolution No. 2000 -12, the Staff reports prepared for all of the Planning Commission and the City Council meetings, the project plans, all of the correspondence and testimony presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, including, without limitation, the testimony presented at the August 15, 2000 City Council meeting, the additional material submitted by Mr. Abrams, the testimony and reports by the City's expert, Dr. Henry Richter, and by the other interested parties, and the Minutes of both the Planning Commission hearing and these proceedings, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference, provide a written record of the basis for the City Council's decision in this matter. In denying the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 207, the City has not "[regulated] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission's regulations concerning such emissions" (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), subsection (B)(iv)). Although radio frequency emission are identified as an environmental effect in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this application, the environmental analysis clearly states that these effects are not significant and are not within the City's purview to consider or regulate. In addition, the City Attorney advised the City Council that the City Council could not consider any environmental effects of emissions that comply with FCC regulations, including purported impacts upon health or alleged interference with television reception. The City Council has relied upon that advice and the provisions of the Act and, therefore, has not based its decision to deny the proposed project in any respect upon any actual or perceived environmental effects attributable to radio frequency emissions. Section 8: The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared by Staff, in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 207, is not adopted by the City Council because the City Council finds that the approval of the proposed project will result in significant adverse visual and aesthetic impacts upon properties surrounding the project site, both singularly and cumulatively. Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 12 of 13 Section 9: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(v)), any person adversely affected by the City's final action in this matter may, within thirty (30) days after such action, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. Section 10: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, with prejudice, Conditional Use Permit No. 207 for the proposed commercial use of existing antennae on an existing antenna support structure and array located at 44 Oceanaire Drive in the Del Cerro neighborhood. However, this denial is without prejudice to Mr. Abrams's ability to file an application for a conditional use permit to transmit commercially at another location in the City. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August 2000. tV\\ MAYOR ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) 1, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2000 -53 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 15, 2000. M: \Projects \CUP 207_EA 720 (Abrams) \Resolution 2000- 53.doc City 6lerk City • Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No. 2000 -53 Page 13 of 13