The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998 - A minor use permit for a new Class 3 (Public Right-of-Way) wireless telecommunications facility installation at the northeastern corner of Spyglass Hill Road and El Capitan Drive. The applicant propos - 1 Narbonne RESOLUTION NO. 1998 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND DENYING MINOR USE PERMIT NO. UP2015-024 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR A NEW CLASS 3 (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 1 (CS) NARBONNE (NORTHEAST CORNER OF SPYGLASS HILL ROAD AND EL CAPITAN DRIVE) (PA2015-094) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Verizon Wireless with respect to the public right-of-way area located at 1 (CS) Narbonne near the northeastern corner of Spyglass Hill Road and EI Capitan Drive requesting approval of a minor use permit. 2. The applicant proposes to construct a new Class 3 (Public Right-of-Way) wireless telecommunications facility installation at the northeastern corner of Spyglass Hill Road and EI Capitan Drive. The project will include the replacement of an existing light standard with a new 35-foot-high stealth light standard with a 30-inch radome screening three panel antennas and a GPS antenna. All support equipment will be installed within a new underground vault approximately 90 feet southeast of the stealth light standard within the public right-of-way. 3. The site is within the public right-of-way and is, therefore, not designated within the Land Use Element of the General Plan nor is it located within a zoning district. 4. The site is not located within the Coastal Zone boundary. 5. A public hearing was held on September 10, 2015, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room (Bay E-1st Floor) at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. The Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. ZA2015-053 approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2015-024. 7. On September 24, 2015, residents Laurie and Bruce Horn filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. 8. A de novo public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 5, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The Planning Commission considered evidence, both written and oral, presented at this meeting. A Planning Commission Resolution No. 1998 Page 2 of 4 notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The Planning Commission may approve a use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility only after making each of the required findings set forth in Sections 20.52.020 (Conditional Use Permit and Minor Use Permits) and 20.49.060 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities — Permit Review Procedures) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the following required findings: Required Finding: 20.52.020(F)(3) The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. Facts Contrary To Finding: 1. The proposed facility would not be compatible with the existing and allowed uses in the vicinity.as the size and scale of the installation was determined to be too large. 2. The photographic renderings submitted by the applicant to justify visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood were not to scale and could, therefore, not be used as accurate representations of the proposed installation. The evidence submitted by the appellant indicated the wireless facility would be large in size and not visually compatible with the surrounding uses. 3. The existing canopy tree coverage located in the adjacent park fluctuates depending on the season with periodic trimmings and, therefore, should not be used to assume they will provide screening for the life of the proposed facility. Required Finding: 20.52.020(F)(5) Operation of the use at the location would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts Contrary To Finding: 10-15-2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1998 Page 3 of 4 1. The installation and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility at this location would be detrimental to the neighborhood and could pose a potentially negative economic impact on the surrounding properties and residents. A realtor specializing in the buying and selling of homes in the Spyglass community offered evidence that the installation of the wireless facility will result in visual blight and would otherwise disrupt the view of existing homes within the community, both from the park and nearby residential structures. The realtor testified the visual blight created by the wireless facility will have a detrimental impact on home values. 2. Evidence was presented by the appellant both written and oral to indicate the potential for diminished property values should the proposed facility be installed. Required Finding: 20.49.060(H)(1)(a) The proposed telecom facility is visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Facts Contrary To Findinq: 1. The facility as proposed would be visually incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and adjacent City Park because of the size and scale of the facility. This determination was partially based on a physical representation submitted by the appellant to demonstrate the approximate scale of the proposed radome structure atop the replacement street light. No substantial similar evidence had been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate otherwise. 2. The photographic renderings submitted by the applicant to justify visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood were not to scale and could, therefore, not be used as accurate representations of the proposed installation. 3. The existing canopy tree coverage located in the adjacent park fluctuates depending on the season with periodic trimmings and, therefore, should not be used to assume they will provide screening for the life of the proposed facility. 4. The substantial evidence submitted by the applicant through their coverage maps and the evidence submitted by the appellant, and the numerous speakers that purported to be Verizon customers, established there is wireless coverage in this area and a denial based upon aesthetics will not result or constitute a prohibition on the provision of wireless services in this community. This denial still allows for Verizon Wireless to provide cell service in the community. Required Finding: 20.49.060(H)(1)(c) An alternative site(s) located further away from a residential district, public park, or public facility cannot feasibly fulfill the coverage needs fulfilled by the installation at the proposed site. 10-15-2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1998 Page 4 of 4 Facts Contrary To Finding: 1. Based on documentation submitted by the applicant and public testimony, adequate coverage exists within the neighborhood; therefore, denial based on aesthetics will not result or constitute a prohibition on the provision of wireless services within the community. Further, it was not clearly demonstrated by the applicant that alternative sites further away from a residential district or public park are unable to fulfill the coverage needs that would be provided by the proposed installation. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Minor Use Permit No. UP2015-024 without prejudice. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand, Zak NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Koetting, Kramer BY:-a Kory Kramer, Chair / J BY:— tong cretary / LA6e �- '10-15-20'13