HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_09-10-2020_ZA_Minutes - DRAFT
Page 1 of 3
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH
ZOOM
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 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
Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner
Liane Schuller, Planning Consultant
II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2020
One member of the public, Mr. Jim Mosher stated that the Minutes did not fully capture what was said in the
meeting. He also suggested that the Zoning administrator recordings should be retained and that they should
have a policy to do that.
Action: Approved as amended
IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 Mraz Residence Addition Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-099 (PA2020-154)
Site Location: 2310 West Ocean Front Council District 1
Liane Schuller, Planning Consultant, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant is proposing
a 213-square-foot third story addition, including a 446-square-foot deck area. The project complies with all
applicable development standards, including setbacks, maximum height and parking. Ms. Schuller stated
a coastal development permit is required because the addition exceeds 10% of the existing floor area and
the overall height of the structure will increase by more than 10%. The project meets all development
standards and staff is proposing additional/revised language to the resolution to further clarify project
compliance with sea level rise requirements.
Applicant John Morgan, on behalf of the owner, stated that they had reviewed the draft resolution and agree
with all of the required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, wanted to ensure
that posting requirements are in place during COVID, suggested a condition of approval be considered to
ensure covered deck area remains open, suggested staff reports include photos of surrounding
neighborhood demonstrating consistency with development patterns and reiterated his concern regarding
bird-strikes.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing.
Action: Approved as amended
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 09/10/2020
Page 2 of 3
ITEM NO. 3 AT&T Small Cell SLC0007 Minor Use Permit No. UP2019-043 and Coastal Development
Permit No. CD2020-120 (PA2019-150)
Site Location: Public right-of-way, City streetlight number SLC0007, parkway south of
Ocean Boulevard at the intersection of Channel Road and Ocean Boulevard
Council District 1
Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is for a minor use
permit and coastal development permit to allow the installation of a wireless small cell facility on top of an
existing City streetlight in the public right of way. Wireless small cell technology is being deployed across the
country to help fill coverage needs. While federal and state law mostly regulate wireless facility’s, the City’s
task, and the subject of this item, is to assess aesthetic, land use, and environmental impacts. In February
2019, the City Council authorized a master agreement with New Cingular Wireless LLC, for the use of
streetlights for siting small cell technology. Part of the agreement includes approved designs off which the
proposed project is based. The project location is within the coastal zone and public right of way at Ocean
Boulevard and Channel Road at the east end of the Newport Peninsula. Abutting uses include West Jetty Park
to the east and single-family development to the north, south, and west. In order to support the installation of
the small cell technology, the Applicant proposes to remove the existing City streetlight and replace with one
similar in design and style with the luminaire at the same height. All antennas are enclosed within a screening
shroud atop the streetlight pole, and support equipment is hidden below grade. Staff review requires analysis
of alternative sites, though all those studied were not found to be preferred candidates over the subject site.
Alternative sites were discovered to be more visually disruptive to the environment or were unfeasible due to
constructional constraints. The proposed project is consistent with the Implementation Plan, Zoning Code, and
Land/Coastal Land Use policies. Since the project site is located on an existing pole inland of the shore and
not on a beach, there will be no impact to access or coastal views. The Zoning Code and Implementation Plan
allow Class 3 Installations on the public right of way and the project will not introduce a new vertical intrusion
that would otherwise cause a visual disruption to the environment. The maximum height of the facility is 35 feet
and the proposed project complies at a height of 33 feet, 9 inches. Because of the integrated design that
coordinates with the surrounding streetlight poles and landscaping, the fact that support equipment would be
below grade, and that the height is compliant, the project will be visually compatible with the neighborhood.
Conditions of approval are provided to mitigate potential impacts. Staff recommended approval of the project.
Franklin Orozco, of Ericson, on behalf of AT&T, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees
with all of the required conditions. He acknowledged he is joined by Corey Autrey, of Wireless Policy Group,
also on behalf of AT&T.
Jim Mosher, a member of the public, commented that it would be good to identify if Mr. Orozco and Autrey
were applicants or lobbyists on behalf of the Applicant. He continued that the staff report contained errors in
respect to the coastal appeal information. Mr. Mosher also pointed out an error in support of findings that deals
with a prohibition on wireless sites located on the beach or between the sea and first public road paralleling the
sea, which states that the facility will be located on an existing utility tower. The subject site is a streetlight pole
and is not a utility tower. He agreed the site location is the proper solution compared to alternatives in the area,
but expressed concern about where other carriers would locate their facilities in the area. Though not required
under the Code, more consideration should be made to assess the impact to the private view of the abutting
residential property. This would follow the rationale from a former small cell proposal heard by the Zoning
Administrator a few weeks ago that located away from residential views.
In response to Mr. Mosher’s comments, the Zoning Administrator asked Mr. Orozco and Mr. Autrey to identify
their relationship to AT&T.
Mr. Orozco clarified he works for Ericson, who is a vendor for AT&T. Mr. Autrey stated he is a consultant with
Wireless Policy Group, who is a vendor for AT&T. AT&T commonly uses consultants and vendors to do this
type of work.
The Zoning Administrator made note of the City’s lobbyist registration requirement. He then directed Mr. Achis
to forward the information and requirements to Mr. Orozco and Mr. Autrey for their review and registration if
needed. He asked that the appeal language be corrected per Mr. Mosher’s comments. The reference to the
existing utility tower in the resolution was an error. Under NBMC Section 21.49.040 (Telecom Facility
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 09/10/2020
Page 3 of 3
Preferences and Prohibited Locations), existing facilities located on a beach or between the sea and first public
road paralleling the sea are acceptable for a telecom facility and the resolution should be updated to change
“existing utility tower” to “existing facility.”
In response to the Zoning Administrator’s question, Mr. Achis confirmed there was correspondence as part of
the application, though the Applicant did initial outreach efforts that resulted in some comments from the
community.
Prompted by the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Orozco explained in addition to the City’s public noticing
requirements, he sent out initial mailers before the application was scheduled for a hearing to the homeowners’
association, owners, and residential occupants within the typical 300-foot radius. A few comments were
received in support of the project because of the added coverage it would bring to the area. One gentleman,
who is located outside the project radius and was notified as part of the homeowners’ association, expressed
opposition of any installation at the intersection of 1222 East Balboa Boulevard, which is a site not related to
the subject installation.
The Zoning Administrator stated the City takes a small cell facilities’ proximity into residences into account
when assessing alternative site locations. In considering the existing streetlight structures in the neighborhood
and the significance of coastal access and the view from the public park, the subject site is determined to be
the most superior location. Existing tall landscape helps mask the facilities presence and it will limit new vertical
encroachments into the viewshed. The Zoning Administrator directed Mr. Achis to add a fact in support of
finding H, 3, to state the location of the small cell facility in the West Jetty Park would cause an impact on the
public’s use of the park because of construction and routine maintenance activities.
Action: Approved as amended
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
One member of the public, Mr. Mosher, commented that the appeal form should be a fillable PDF form, stating
that it should be available without special request on the City’s website.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The hearing was adjourned at 10:39 a.m.
The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on September 3, 2020, at 5:00 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 September 3, 2020, at 5:15 p.m.
Jaime Murillo
Zoning Administrator
Sept. 24, 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 September 10, 2020
The following corrections are suggested:
Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 1: “Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project
description stating that the request is for a minor use permit and coastal development permit to
allow the installation of a wireless small cell facility on top of an existing a replacement City
streetlight in the public right of way. Wireless small cell technology is being deployed across the
country to help fill coverage needs. While federal and state law mostly regulate wireless
facility’s facilities, the City’s task, and the subject of this item, is to assess aesthetic, land use,
and environmental impacts.”
Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 3, last sentence: “This would follow the rationale from a former small
cell proposal heard by the Zoning Administrator a few two weeks ago that located away from
residential views.” [pretty sure I said “two” not “few” to make clear which application it wasa]
Page 3, paragraph 4: “The Zoning Administrator stated the City takes a small cell facilities’
facility’s proximity into to residences into account when assessing alternative site locations. In
considering the existing streetlight structures in the neighborhood and the significance of coastal
access and the view from the public park, the subject site is determined to be the most superior
location. Existing tall landscape helps mask the cell facilities’ facility’s presence and it will limit
new vertical encroachments into the viewshed. The Zoning Administrator directed Mr. Achis to
add a fact in support of finding H, 3, H.3 to state the location of the small cell facility in the West
Jetty Park would cause an impact on the public’s use of the park because of construction and
routine maintenance activities.” [Note: In addition to the corrections suggested, in sentence 2,
“is” should probably be “was” and “most superior” simply “superior.”]
Zoning Administrator - September 24, 2020
Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Draft Minutes of September 10, 2020