Sposi v. Santa Clara City
| Decision Date | 05 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:17-cv-1057-CW |
| Parties | MARY BETH SPOSI, an individual; and MENLO SMITH, an individual, Petitioners, v. SANTA CLARA CITY, UTAH, a Utah City, VERIZON WIRELESS, and WINDY PEAK, LC., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Santa Clara City, Utah (the “City” or “Santa Clara”) issued a conditional use permit to Verizon Wireless to build a cell tower on property owned by Windy Peak, LC. The cell tower site is in an agricultural zoning area that has been designated as open space on the City's General Plan. Petitioners Mary Beth Sposi and Menlo Smith are property owners who contend the City acted illegally and in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it approved the special permit to the alleged detriment of their property. They appeal the City's decision and contend the special permit should be voided.[1] The court concludes the City's decision is not supported by the evidence. It therefore reverses the City's decision and remands the case to the City with the instruction to void the CUP.
In an era of ever-increasing wireless network expansion, cities and towns are grappling with the need for telecommunication facilities on the one hand and preserving a community's aesthetic and visual resources, zoning, and property rights on the other. Santa Clara is a small town in Southern Utah with a population of 8, 417. See U.S. Census Bureau at www.census.gov/quickfacts/. It has a General Plan that expresses “a commitment to protecting agricultural lands and that the agricultural lands give Santa Clara ‘a dramatic, open, and green gateway.'” Admin. Rec., at 18 (ECF No. 35) (quoting Santa Clara General Plan, § 9.3.7).[2] St. George is a neighboring city, with a population of 89, 587. See U.S. Census Bureau, at www.census.gov/quickfacts/.
In 2016, Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) applied for a conditional use permit (“CUP”) to construct a 100-foot monopole cell tower on property owned by Windy Peak in Santa Clara. The property is known as Frei Farm. The site is in an “agricultural residential” zoning area designated as open space “under the Santa Clara General Plan, ” and is also “next to the Santa Clara River” and “on or very near a planned public trail site” set forth in the City's “master trail plan.” Admin. Rec., at 14-15 (ECF No. 35). At the Frei Farm elevation, the land is “relatively flat” with “no natural screening of the tower.” Id. at 14, 38-43 ().
Frei Farm is located on a peninsula-like area of Santa Clara (the “peninsula”), where it is bounded on three sides by St. George, Utah. The following depicts Santa Clara's southern boundary in yellow.
(Image Omitted)
Admin Rec., at 188 (ECF No. 36) (modified by adding red and blue stars). The red star marks the approximate location of the cell tower site at issue. At the time of application, the area of St. George immediately to the right of the peninsula (dark brown) was in development for a 57-unit subdivision. Admin. Rec., at 187 (ECF No. 36) (); Id. at 215 (discussing subdivision). The other area of St. George siUTOiinding the peninsula and extending south contains the Sunbrook subdivision, which is known for having extraordinary views of the mountains and premier homes. The developers of the subdivisions and some of the residents of Sunbrook opposed the cell tower location because they asserted it would impact view lots and view corridors that were carefiilly planned. See Admin. Rec., at 212, 215 (ECF No. 36) and Admin. Rec., at 3 (ECF No. 60) (discussing efforts to develop the subdivisions);[3] see also Admin. Rec., at 6-11 (ECF No. 60) (identifying those in Sunbrook who opposed building the cell tower at Frei Farm). The area also has the Sunbrook Golf Club owned by St. George. To the northeast of Frei Farm is Arrowhead Elementary School. It is marked with a blue star on the photograph. The golf course and school were alternate sites considered for the tower.
As detailed further below, the City denied Verizon's first application because it concluded the tower was contrary to the City's aesthetic planning and detrimental to the property of the Sunbrook residents. Verizon then submitted a second application the following year, with modified terms and evidence. The City approved the second application, and Petitioners appealed that decision to this court.
After Santa Clara approved the CUP, and while this appeal was pending, Verizon built the cell tower.[4] The tower has three reported cells. Admin. Rec., at 49-50 (ECF No. 36) (showing service areas for each cell). One cell serves Santa Clara; the other two serve St. George. See Admin. Rec., at 94 (ECF No. 36) ( tower adds an additional cell for Santa Clara); Id. at 23 ().” This case, therefore, presents a unique scenario where (1) Verizon applied for a CUP in Santa Clara, even though St. George would be the predominant beneficiary of a cell tower, [5] (2) Santa Clara was left to determine the impact not only for itself, but for St. George residents as well, and (3) Santa Clara approved the CUP application for the cell tower to the purported detriment of some St. George residents who are the petitioners in this case.
Verizon submitted its first application on March 9, 2016, and “[t]he Santa Clara City Planning Commission granted the conditional use permit in a public meeting held on June 14, 2016.” Admin. Rec., at 11 (ECF No. 35). Petitioners appealed the decision to the Santa Clara City Council (the “Council”). On August 3, 2016, the Council reversed the decision and denied the application. Id. at 22. Because the denial explains the nature of location relative to the City's planning and zoning provisions, the court summarizes the denial as follows:
A. Detrimental Effects on Aesthetics and Property Values
The Council noted the open space designation, planned trail, and the geography at or near the site. Admin. Rec., at 14-15 (ECF No. 35). The Council also noted the proposed 100-foot “tower would obstruct extraordinary views of the northern mountains for the neighbors with ‘view lots' to the south and southwest of the site, ” and that it would negatively impact “nearby property values.” Id. at 14-15. It concluded “[a]ll of these attributes” made Frei Farm “uniquely unsuited for a 100-foot cellular tower.” Id. at 15 (emphasis added). The City further concluded that the “proposed use [was] so incompatible with surrounding properties that the detrimental effects to the aesthetics and property in the area [could not] be substantially mitigated by imposing conditions to achieve compliance with the ordinance.” Id. at 15.
B. Prohibited Location - Open Space
The Council found that placing a tower at Frei Farm violated Santa Clara's zoning regulations because the “site has an open space designation under the Santa Clara General Plan.” Admin. Rec., at 15 (ECF No. 35). The City's ordinances prohibit a cell tower in open space unless it “‘blends with the surrounding existing natural and manmade environment in such a manner as to be effectively unnoticeable and a finding is made that no other location is technically feasible.'” Id. (quoting Santa Clara City Code § 17.42.190(B)) (emphasis added). Based on aerial views, the City concluded the tower would be “extremely noticeable” and not blend into the area. Id. at 15-16 & n.22. The City also concluded Verizon had failed to show “no other location [was] technically feasible.” Id. at 16.
C. Prohibited Location - Area Not Developed for Telecommunications
Even if the site was not in a designated open space, the Council found Verizon still failed to satisfy Santa Clara Ordinance 17.42.190(D). That ordinance prohibits construction of a cell tower “in a location that is not already developed with telecommunications facilities, ” unless “one of two criteria is met.” Admin. Rec., at 16 (ECF No. 35). Either (1) the tower must “be effectively unnoticeable” or (2) technical evidence is provided that shows a clear need for the facility and that collocating it on a site “already developed with telecommunications facilities” is not feasible. Id. The City concluded Verizon had failed to provide evidence to satisfy any of these conditions. Id. at 16-17.
D. Feasible Alternates with Less Environmental Impact
Santa Clara Ordinance 17.42.210(A) requires an analysis of “‘all reasonable, technically feasible, alternative locations and/or facilities which would provide the proposed telecommunication service.'” Admin. Rec., at 17 (ECF No. 35) (quoting Santa Clara City Code § 17.42.210(A)). “[T]he study must ‘explain the rationale for selection of the proposed site in view of the relative merits of any of the feasible alternatives.'” Id. (quoting Santa Clara City Code § 17.42.210(A)). The Council found that Verizon had failed to submit an “analysis or study regarding any alternative locations or facilities.” Id. Accordingly, it concluded the Planning Commission had ‘failed to make the required finding” and no finding could be made from the evidence in the record. Id. at 17-18.
E. Inconsistent with General Plan
The City has “a commitment to protecting agricultural lands, ” which gives the City “a dramatic, open, and green gateway.” Admin. Rec., at 18 (ECF No. 35). The Council concluded “[t]he 100-foot tower is so incompatible with the surrounding area that no conditions could be imposed to make it consistent with these standards.” Id. at 19.
F. Federal Law - No Significant Gap
After...
To continue reading
Request your trial