[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6693858,"mediaKeyId","2249018-e7de98705b1549f362eceb8bf3037f13","parentId",2249018,"title","Board upholds planning commission denial of 110‑foot cell tower in Orangevale after residents cite aesthetics, noise and alternatives","audioSeconds",3089,"startMs",4978000,"endMs",8067000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249018-e7de98705b1549f362eceb8bf3037f13&start=4978&end=8067","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249018-e7de98705b1549f362eceb8bf3037f13/thumbnail_4978000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6693858/Sacramento-County/California/Board-upholds-planning-commission-denial-of-110foot-cell-tower-in-Orangevale-after-residents-cite-aesthetics-noise-and-alternatives","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693858-5ad4fdba1a35592a7d5dd5226549a6f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771096549&Signature=RBg80F6ba9~BWuaZ9aGJ0psJMvtoYi7KWBrqRw28o~dwBlNt1L9LSGEzCv~VjTRPpakKYryA1~0LO8MbGZiIzRL9FwJC9LvC55vRRBK4UXXKaX~gtS~Ta53ow9HqD0ZclJPPtQzjZKvHf7ICFt59FaCM0eQzTLJB-mRk7PgpsvMHdmCZSbUbbM5kNGowD8SPqTgJppFoylOq~IfNXc1J5p32CTS2vJ2ZmLDjdajbTAGYk5kE9lDnHxevq5qQtOqbwSIVr8jwgIMmB7x0U~jJ1D9YA9oIufiqWFn-K95upDb1DxPn646qILl~0lubl9DmYMVSkbhJmn7iZfSDIfn1Qg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sacramento County","date","2025-02-07T19:06:35.87Z","article","The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 4 unanimously upheld the Planning Commission’s denial of a use permit, special development permit and design review for a proposed AT&T wireless communications tower at 7908 Hazel Avenue in the Orangevale community.

County planning staff had recommended the board overturn the Planning Commission and approve the project — conditioned on mitigation measures and design treatments — saying the proposed site would reduce an identified service‑coverage gap. The applicant and its consultant, Epic Wireless Group, argued the carrier had tried but could not secure co‑location on a nearby 106‑foot monopole (identified in the application as an American Tower site) and that the proposed location would better serve churches, schools, senior facilities and a neighborhood identified as Almond Acres.

Planning staff described the project as a 110‑foot faux‑broadleaf tree with 12 panel antennas, equipment cabinets, a backup generator and a secured 40‑by‑40 lease area in the rear yard of a single‑family parcel zoned AR‑2. The application requested deviations from the zoning code for maximum height (the Group 1 zone height limit is 55 feet) and minimum separation from Group 1 properties (separation is three times the tower height). Staff said the project, as conditioned, complied with the General Plan, community plan and countywide design guidelines and that a mitigated negative declaration had been prepared under CEQA.

The Planning Commission heard objections about the height, visual impacts and the completeness of the applicant’s alternative site analysis. The Orangevale Community Planning Advisory Council also recommended denial. Members of the public told the planning panel and the board they had measured shorter separations between the proposed lease area and nearby residences than the applicant’s analysis indicated, they expressed concern about the noise from a diesel backup generator at close range, and they raised questions about long‑term health effects from radiofrequency exposure.

At the board hearing, the applicant’s representative, Andrew Lisa of Epic Wireless Group, said Epic had repeatedly contacted the owner of the nearby American Tower site and that the property owner’s negotiations with American Tower did not produce a lease extension. Lisa said updated engineering analysis showed a more southerly placement of the proposed facility would serve roughly twice the population and several institutional sites that would not be covered from the alternative site.

County counsel reminded the board that the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 constrains local land‑use denials where a carrier has made a valid showing that a denial would effectively prohibit service or that the locality failed to make written findings on feasible alternatives. Several supervisors — including Don Hume and Desmond — emphasized the county retains land‑use authority but must weigh federal limitations and the planning record. Supervisor Hume moved to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Residents urged the board to require the applicant to pursue co‑location more aggressively and to consider lower‑height and alternative designs rather than approving a 110‑foot structure in a largely residential, semi‑rural neighborhood. The board’s decision preserves the Planning Commission’s findings that visual and aesthetic impacts and an inadequate comparison of alternatives justified denial.

The applicant may pursue further remedies available under federal law or revise the project to address the Planning Commission’s and the board’s concerns (for example, reducing height, improving concealment, providing additional evidence that co‑location is infeasible, or identifying different placement).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Supervisors - 2/4/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Feb. 4 to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of a proposed 110‑foot wireless facility at 7908 Hazel Avenue in Orangevale. The appeal included competing technical coverage claims and concerns about co‑location on a nearby existing tower; the board concluded the Planning Commission’s findings stood.","taxTitle","Sacramento County, California","taxId",2889,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6693864,"Board renames Community Review Commission, approves membership changes after report and questions about sheriff's mental‑health policy",3195,1683000,4878000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249018-e7de98705b1549f362eceb8bf3037f13&start=1683&end=4878","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249018-e7de98705b1549f362eceb8bf3037f13/thumbnail_1683000.jpg","/articles/6693864/Sacramento-County/California/Board-renames-Community-Review-Commission-approves-membership-changes-after-report-and-questions-about-sheriffs-mentalhealth-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693864-a8518e153d36a88c2857d2344bd59d87/orig.mp4?Expires=1771096549&Signature=dsCFJnk8wVirLXjn-kvGA0mydUWSGP4bdrNi3Hm6GcZBsJdNQ9CuDVdC6TFHuZxtlHddY9qbRpyVJ7kQ~vC6ONSigwCVmNOCQdauoNppIiXmIxOP1CbdrXwrNBPZpjNHiTrX~XRu-kyteIBYVcP95fSqtI3vbouuKJQAMuJMCNp8EO~WaOjf4WzS0tUZmrWyef573XMEr42qVEg84vCgwXvWR~MsM1fqbbCO0~7ihZRUj8eldkji~nWQv1gh7871L3eFBMB4uhB86zk2GxbYJXZwXRMLcSLhJQaCrxj2JYbV5Vo0tHdFpkqGu~KHnjGclHwkf6rxj2~cs~urNV5grQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 4 unanimously approved a resolution that changes the Community Review Commission’s name to the Sheriff Community Review Commission and revises membership terms, including a move to stagger appointment years and clarify midterm appointment length.

The commission, created after state action enabling civilian oversight, delivered its annual report to the board and urged clearer public communication and additional study of a recent Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office policy change on field response to behavioral‑health calls.

The commission’s chair, Paul Curtis, summarized the board packet and the panel’s three years of work. He told supervisors the commission was created after Assembly Bill 1185 permitted county sheriff oversight boards with subpoena power and that Sacramento had been an early adopter of civilian review work in the state. Curtis said the panel’s ad hoc committees have examined vehicle stops, jail mental‑health care and other sheriff operations and have issued recommendations to the county’s Office of the Inspector General.

Curtis told the board the commission supports changing its name to clarify its role with respect to the sheriff and to distinguish it from city oversight bodies. The commission also recommended aligning member terms with the fiscal year, staggering appointee start years so supervisors do not replace multiple members at once, clarifying midterm appointment lengths and removing the existing term‑limit language so experienced volunteers are not lost in a field that Curtis described as difficult to recruit for.

Supervisors praised the commission’s work but divided on term limits. Supervisor Don N. Hume said staggered terms were sensible and later moved to uphold the planning commission’s denial in a separate agenda item (see separate article). Supervisor Patrick Kennedy, who helped develop the commission’s original structure, supported the proposed name change while explaining earlier choices to avoid the word “oversight” so as not to overpromise authority to the public. Supervisor Desmond and Supervisor Rodriguez offered similar thanks for the commission’s work.

Several members of the public and community organizations addressed the board during the CRC item. Patricia Wenzel, a member of the County Mental Health Board and the Community Wellness Response Team advisory committee, urged stronger county promotion of 988 and said she and others want data on how many 911 calls are being diverted to 988. The League of Women Voters’ Paula Lee and the Sacramento chapter of the ACLU asked the board to protect a robust civilian oversight role; the ACLU speaker said advocates had pushed for a body with “oversight” in its name when the commission was created. Other commenters asked that commission duties include review of sheriff compliance with state laws on use of force and jail operations.

The commission also raised alarm about a recently announced sheriff’s policy change limiting deputy responses to some mental‑health calls. Curtis told the board the commission had asked the sheriff’s office to present the new policy at the commission’s Jan. 21 meeting and that the body is “extremely concerned” the policy was implemented without broad consultation with other first responders and civilian crisis clinicians. Commissioners said they will gather more information, collect public comment and direct an ad hoc committee to analyze how the change will affect residents and other responders; the CRC planned to revisit the issue at its Feb. 18 meeting.

County staff confirmed they worked with county counsel to prepare the resolution and that, if the board approved the document in the packet, the changes would take effect immediately. After discussion and public comment, the board voted unanimously to approve the resolution updating the commission’s name and membership terms and authorized the clerk to adjust current members’ term dates to align with the staggered schedule.

The board and commission members repeatedly noted limits on the board’s direct authority over an elected sheriff’s operational policy while emphasizing the commission’s role as a conduit for public concerns to the Office of the Inspector General and as a forum for recommendations to the sheriff’s office.

The commission’s full annual report and proposed redline of the resolution are on the commission website; the CRC said it will continue its review of the sheriff’s mental‑health response policy at its next meeting and encouraged public attendance.","On Feb. 4 the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution renaming the Community Review Commission to the Sheriff Community Review Commission and updating member terms. Commissioners and supervisors pressed for more information after the sheriff implemented a change to how deputies respond to some mental‑health calls.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6693854,"Votes at a glance: Board ratifies winter‑storm emergency; adopts consent items including sidewalk‑vending and Water Agency reports",32,1450000,1482000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2249018-e7de98705b1549f362eceb8bf3037f13&start=1450&end=1482","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2249018-e7de98705b1549f362eceb8bf3037f13/thumbnail_1450000.jpg","/articles/6693854/Sacramento-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-Board-ratifies-winterstorm-emergency-adopts-consent-items-including-sidewalkvending-and-Water-Agency-reports","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6693854-0522c5cddd245f6e270b6f023d9854fc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771096549&Signature=byd2VY2cmSuSqdVyV79nOI~Buq~V0PLYp94M09SAlhlr1Er8G9E1LFZzLygKl-Kqb~WBpgNGR6p8ddhslygle1D7G1-49fduPK1HEsxL-1iCQQ-VU31JoATFdYnVIpJU3tkc3v-h9AdqJVP7zKiHpdxrmfmBa4j-mRe9Mmc-EaqrrvHCpeGqbkUtyHFa05ypEFW72wUAyoHVjeFx3UMOEgF0jrMS0mZs5joLOMOalpLPbkydT1Ogz3~LhEFzW23VereMHXITWilt33R7U4sYz8hypy3t77Qnn6BP~qwIf-42eXusa8Np82jpQylZMdeTKA7PlhV8lcoiPxHxPh1iTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 4 took several routine but formal actions during its meeting:

- Ratification of an existing local proclamation of emergency for the February 2025 winter storms: The board moved and voted unanimously to determine the necessity of hearing the ratification and then approved a resolution ratifying the local proclamation of emergency. The motion passed without public comment.

- Consent calendar approvals (items 2–16): The board approved consent calendar items by unanimous vote. The clerk’s notes said the board would adopt three Sacramento County code ordinances: additions and amendments related to sidewalk vending (Title 4, Chapter 4.55), compact mobile food operators (Title 6, Chapter 6.05), revisions to park regulations (Title IX, Chapter 9.36) and repeal of a prior regulation of street businesses (Title IV, Chapter 4.54) (consent item 3). The board also acted as the Sacramento County Water Agency to approve development impact fee annual and five‑year finding reports for fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 (consent item 9).

- Staffing and security on transit (consent item 12): The board approved adding six full‑time security officer positions to RT (regional transit) staffing; Supervisor Rodriguez commented that increased security positions should improve public perception of safety for transit users.

All consent items were approved unanimously. No members of the public spoke on consent items and the board had several brief statements of support or clarification from supervisors before voting.","At its Feb. 4 meeting the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors unanimously ratified a local proclamation of emergency for winter storms and approved consent calendar items including three county code ordinances on vending/food operators and the Sacramento County Water Agency impact fee reports.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board upholds planning commission denial of 110‑foot cell tower in Orangevale after residents cite aesthetics, noise and alternatives

Board renames Community Review Commission, approves membership changes after report and questions about sheriff's mental‑health policy

Votes at a glance: Board ratifies winter‑storm emergency; adopts consent items including sidewalk‑vending and Water Agency reports