Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_08-27-2020_ZA_Minutes - DRAFT Page 1 of 4 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH ZOOM THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2020 REGULAR MEETING – 10:00 A.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Staff Present (remote): Jaime Murillo, Zoning Administrator Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2020 Action: Approved as Amended IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 AT&T Small Cell SLC0902 Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-119 (PA2019-113) Site Location: Public right-of-way, City streetlight number SLC0902, at the northwestern corner of 38th Street and Lake Avenue Council District 1 Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner, provided some background on small cell technology and the City’s purview stressing that the City’s review is narrowed by Federal Law to focus primarily on land use compatibility, aesthetics, and environmental impacts. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exclusively sets standards for radio frequency or “RF” emissions. Because of this, the City is not able to base any recommendation on potential health and safety impacts. Senior Planner Zdeba also noted that on February 12, 2019, the Newport Beach City Council authorized the execution of a Master License Agreement with AT&T, authorizing non-exclusive use of City-owned streetlights to install wireless telecommunications facilities and included approved designs, fee and rent assessments. Mr. Zdeba then provided a brief project description stating that AT&T is requesting to remove and replace City Streetlight No. SLC0902, which is located within the public right-of-way adjacent to the northwestern corner of the 38th Street and Lake Avenue intersection near the Newport Island bridge. All surrounding land uses are residential and vary in density. This location is unique in that there is a vacant parcel of land that is owned by the City between it and the adjacent residence to the west. This intervening parcel is triangular and approximately 60 feet wide at its base. He noted that a minor use permit for this project was previously approved by the Zoning Administrator on May 28, 2020; however, since that approval, it has been determined that a coastal development permit is also required. Senior Planner Zdeba continued that staff analyzed the project for consistency with the Coastal Act. Of concern is access to coastal resources and potential for negative impacts to coastal views, both identified and non- identified. Staff visited the site, reviewed the visual simulations provided by the applicant and determined it does not negatively impact any designated public view corridors nor does it negatively impact coastal access and resources. Specifically, under Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Subsections 20.49.050(b) and 21.49.050(b), review is required in accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection) and General Plan Natural Resources Element Policy NR 20.3 (Public Views). The subject location is located MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 08/27/2020 Page 2 of 4 between the first public roadway paralleling the sea and the sea; however, it is not on a coastal bluff or canyon or public accessway, as identified on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map 4-3 (Coastal Views), and does not contain significant natural landforms or vegetation. Although the project site may be visible from Newport Island Park approximately 175 feet northwest, the replacement streetlight pole will be placed in the same location as the existing streetlight pole and the shroud on top is not anticipated to be detectable from any vantage point at the park. Furthermore, there are existing taller palm trees immediately surrounding the proposed site, which will serve to mask the height of the facility. He added that although the streetlight pole is located between the first public road paralleling the sea and the sea, it is being located on an existing structure and is, therefore, allowable. The project is consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, which aims to protect and enhance scenic resources. Senior Planner Zdeba continued that from a Municipal Code perspective, this type of facility is considered a Class 3 (Public Right-of-Way) installation and falls lower on the preferential list of installation types. The first two classes are stealth facilities, which are often housed on top of existing commercial and multi-family residential structures, and visible facilities, which are exposed antennas on existing commercial and multi- family residential structures. Given the lack of any taller commercial buildings in the area, these more-preferred classes were determined to be unviable. Mr. Zdeba stated that although it does fall lower on the priority list, this facility is designed to blend into the streetscape without visually dominating the area. Maintaining the same luminaire height as the current pole will help to maintain consistency with the surrounding streetlights in the area. Furthermore, the Code discusses development standards including blending and screening. The proposed facility is located adjacent to a vacant parcel that serves as one of the largest buffers to residential properties in the area. The streetlight pole is also located within a landscaped parkway that is planted with taller palm trees, which will serve as a softening buffer between the residential structures beyond and will help to blend the facility into the surroundings. With respect to heights in the area, the maximum allowable height for the abutting residential zoning districts is 29 feet to the ridge of a sloping roof. The current streetlight pole sits below the maximum allowed height of residential structures by 1 foot, 6 inches. Senior Planner Zdeba added that another component of staff’s review is alternative sites in the area that may be better suited for the proposed facility. The applicant provided analysis for three other sites in the vicinity. Attachment No. ZA 4 to the staff report explains each alternative site in more detail and provides photographs as well. Each of the three alternative sites was determined to be unviable due to limited accessibility around a slightly wider pole and proximity to residential structures and living areas. Mr. Zdeba concluded that staff believes all required findings can be made and recommends that the Zoning Administrator find the project exempt from CEQA under Classes 2 and 3, and recommends approval of this project, as submitted. Zoning Administrator Murillo mentioned correspondence received from Jim Mosher and noted that he would like staff to add a condition of approval to the Resolution for the project relating to construction and storage of materials given the adjacency to the waterfront. Applicant Franklin Orozco of M-Squared Wireless, on behalf of the AT&T, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions, including the condition suggested by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke regarding his written correspondence and reiterated his concern about the alternative sites’ analysis. He indicated that the proposed location may not be the best and least obtrusive location from a coastal resource’s standpoint. He also expressed concern that the project’s potential impact to the visual quality of the coast was not fully vetted. In particular, he noted a view from Lake Street Park. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. He indicated he had visited the site and reviewed each alternative location. He expressed agreement with the applicant and staff that the proposed location was the MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 08/27/2020 Page 3 of 4 best option given the ability to maintain some distance from the nearest residential block and the location within a landscaped parkway. He also discussed the Lake Street Park property and views from it. He clarified that views from Lake Street Park are generally towards the canal. Views from this park towards the proposed project site are obstructed by existing landscaping that borders the park to the west. The Zoning Administrator agreed that all findings are met for this project and approved the project with the addition of a condition relating to minimizing or preventing construction-related impacts. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 3 AT&T Small Cell SLC4653 Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-118 (PA2019-115) Site Location: Public right-of-way, City streetlight number SLC4653, on the north side of Bayside Drive, approximately 900 feet northwest of El Paseo Drive Council District 5 Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that AT&T is requesting to remove and replace City Streetlight No. SLC4653, which is located within the public right-of-way on the north side of Bayside Drive, approximately 900 feet northwest of El Paseo Drive. The project site abuts a steep, vegetated slope, and there is no sidewalk on the project side of Bayside Drive. The surrounding land uses are residential and vary in density. The existing single-family residence adjacent to the project site is separated from the streetlight and proposed telecom facility by a significant grade differential. The existing streetlight measures 19 feet, 6 inches in height with a luminaire height of 21 feet, inch. The replacement streetlight will maintain the existing luminaire height of 21 feet, 1 inch and have an overall facility height of 27 feet, 5 inches which is below the City’s 35-foot height limit for telecom facilities and considered the projects consistency with Public View Protection regulations of Section 21.49.050(B) (Public View Protection) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The project site is not located between the first public roadway paralleling the sea, is not on a coastal bluff or canyon, is not adjacent to or within the viewshed of a public view point, coastal view road, public park or beach, or public accessway, as identified on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map 4-3 (Coastal Views), and does not contain significant natural landforms or vegetation. In accordance with NBMC Sections 20.30.100 (Public View Protection), 21.30.100 (Scenic and Visual Quality Protection), and General Plan Natural Resources Policy NR 20.3 (Public Views), the location is not located within a protected public view corridor. The visual impact analysis conducted by staff of the proposed project site found there to be no impact to public views. AT&T considered four alternative locations also along Bayside Drive. Three of the four sites were determined to be infeasible due to construction constraints. Alternative Site No. 4, while found to be a feasible location from a constructability perspective, is located at a bend in Bayside Drive. This location is much more visually intrusive to approaching motorists whereas the proposed site blends in with the existing streetscape and as such was eliminated as a viable alternative location. Ms. Perez added that telecom facilities require approval of a Minor Use Permit and that this project had been heard on April 16, 2020 by the Zoning Administrator and approved for minor use permit number UP2019-034. Ms. Perez concluded that staff believes all required findings can be made for the CDP and recommends approval of this project, as submitted. Zoning Administrator Murillo commented that there is a storm drain inlet and added a condition of approval that the inlet will be protected from debris. Applicant Franklin Orozco of M-Squared Wireless, on behalf of the AT&T, then spoke and added that Alternative Site No. 4 has additional issues beyond the increased visibility. There are trees in the vicinity of the streetlight that would cause conflict with a Public Works requirement to maintain 10 feet of separation from trees. He then stated that he agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 08/27/2020 Page 4 of 4 One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke. Mr. Mosher expressed concern that the adjacent hillside is a coastal bluff, which is a natural resource as defined in the Coastal Land Use Plan, and this project would impact views of coastal bluffs. He reiterated his belief that Alternative Site No. 4 is a superior option as its hillside is already disturbed with a solar panel structure and then noted that the coverage map provided by AT&T suggests coverage from the new facility will reach the residences above which seemed contrary to previous project justifications from AT&T. Mr. Mosher inquired as to why AT&T could not place their antennas like a nearby telecom facility, which utilizes stealth technology, on the roof of a yacht club. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Zdeba responded to Mr. Mosher’s inquiry regarding the yacht club. He explained that while an entitlement was obtained by the carrier T-Mobile to install a faux chimney on the yacht club, the applicant ultimately did not build the facility due to technical issues. Zoning Administrator Murillo considered the alternative sites for the project. He acknowledged that alternative site’s number 1 and number 2 were located closer to the bluffs and would ultimately have greater impacts to views of the natural bluff. Zoning Administrator Murillo continued that he had driven along Bayside Drive and alternative site number 4 is both at a bend in the road and is backdropped by a solar panel structure which makes the facility much more visible to approaching motorists. He then discussed the landscaping installed by the homeowner above on the slope adjacent to the proposed project site. The landscaping, while providing a visual distraction and screening of the telecom, obscures the view of the natural coastal bluff. He concluded that the proposed location is the most appropriate location for the project. Action: Approved as amended V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. VI. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 10:46 a.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on August 21, 2020, at 3:20 p.m. on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City’s website on August 21, 2020, at 3:15 p.m. Jaime Murillo Zoning Administrator Sept. 10, 2020, Zoning Administrator Agenda Comments Comments submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Draft Minutes of August 27, 2020 The following corrections are suggested: Page 1, Item 2, paragraph 1: “Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner, provided some background on small cell technology and the City’s purview stressing that the City’s review is narrowed by Federal Law federal law to focus primarily on land use compatibility, aesthetics, and environmental impacts.” Page 2, paragraph 4 from end: “Applicant Franklin Orozco of M-Squared Wireless, on behalf of the applicant, AT&T, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions, including the condition suggested by the Zoning Administrator.” [Note: I have not requested the audio, so this could be what was said, but both the staff report and the resolution say the applicant was “New Cingular Wireless, LLC.”] Page 3, Item 3, paragraph 2: “The existing streetlight measures 19 feet, 6 inches in height with a luminaire height of 21 feet, 1 inch. The replacement streetlight will maintain the existing luminaire height of 21 feet, 1 inch and have an overall facility height of 27 feet, 5 inches which is below the City’s 35-foot height limit for telecom facilities and. Staff considered the projects project’s consistency with the Public View Protection regulations of Section 21.49.050(B) (Public View Protection) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The project site is not located between the sea and the first public roadway paralleling the sea, is not on a coastal bluff or canyon, is not adjacent to or within the viewshed of a public view point, coastal view road, public park or beach, or public accessway, as identified on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map 4-3 (Coastal Views), and does not contain significant natural landforms or vegetation. In accordance with NBMC Sections 20.30.100 (Public View Protection), 21.30.100 (Scenic and Visual Quality Protection), and General Plan Natural Resources Policy NR 20.3 (Public Views), the location is not located within a protected public view corridor. The visual impact analysis conducted by staff of the proposed project site found there to be no impact to public views.” Page 3, Item 3, paragraph 3, sentence 3: “This location is much more visually intrusive to approaching motorists whereas the proposed site blends in with the existing streetscape and as such Alternative Site No. 4 was eliminated as a viable alternative location.” Page 3, Item 3, paragraph 6: “Applicant Franklin Orozco of M-Squared Wireless, on behalf of the applicant, AT&T, then spoke and added that Alternative Site No. 4 has additional issues beyond the increased visibility.” [Note: See earlier comment. The applicant was, again, identified as “New Cingular Wireless, LLC.”] Zoning Administrator - September 10, 2020 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received after Deadline Draft Minutes of August 27, 2020 Page 4, paragraph 3: “Senior Planner Zdeba responded to Mr. Mosher’s inquiry regarding the yacht club. He explained that while an entitlement was obtained by the carrier T-Mobile to install a faux chimney on the yacht club, the applicant ultimately did not build had not yet built the facility due to technical issues.” [?? Again, I have not requested the audio, and I could be wrong, but my recollection is Mr. Zdeba said that T-Mobile had encountered unexpected difficulties with the sloped roof and had not yet constructed the installation – not that they never would. Possibly the minutes should leave out my suggested word “yet” -- establishing the fact that an installation doesn’t currently exist while leaving uncertain whether there is or is not a plan to build one.] Page 4, paragraph 4, sentence 2: “He acknowledged that alternative site’s sites number 1 and number 2 were located closer to the bluffs and would ultimately have greater impacts to views of the natural bluff.” Zoning Administrator - September 10, 2020 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received after Deadline Draft Minutes of August 27, 2020