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