HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200416_ZA_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020
Page 4 of 8
Lastly, he noted that the City’s review is limited to aesthetics and land use compatibility, and that a more recent
Federal Communications Commission ruling requires the City to accommodate such facilities within the public
rights-of-way.
In response to Mr. Pollock’s comments from his March 25, 2020, letter, Deputy City Attorney Armeen Komeili,
stated that staff reviewed the two license agreements referenced in Mr. Pollock’s letter and the insurance
requirements and has confirmed said insurance requirements have been met and certified by the correct entity.
With respect to pollution liability, neither agreement has a pollution liability clause; therefore, it is not required.
With respect to Mr. Pollock’s contention that the City has the ability to restrict or regulate the operation of these
facilities, Deputy City Attorney Komeili stated that the Ninth Circuit has not yet opined on this matter, but the
Second Circuit has stated that local governments are limited to regulating location, placement and modification,
and cannot regulate the operation. As such, the City Attorney’s Office recommends against using the Minor
Use Permit as a mechanism to restrict the operation of the facility.
Zoning Administrator Murillo recapped the project and noted the change to the streetscape is very nominal and
that the applicant’s design had accomplished blending and screening through maintaining similar attributes to
the current streetlight pole. He further stated his agreement that this is the best location when considering all
five alternative locations. Finally, he provided additional language under statement number four of “Section 1
Statement of Facts” with respect to the Coastal Development Permit exemption.
The Zoning Administrator approved the project and found it exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act under the Class 2 and 3 exemptions.
Action: Approved as Amended
ITEM NO. 4 AT&T Small Cell SLC4653 Minor Use Permit No. UP2019-034 (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 the applicant is requesting a
minor use permit to allow the replacement of a City streetlight and the subsequent installation of telecom
equipment for a small cell wireless facility. The streetlight proposed for the project, City Streetlight Number
SLC4653, is located on the northeast side of Bayside Drive, approximately 900 feet northwest of El Paseo
Drive. This streetlight is within the coastal zone and therefore initially evaluated in accordance with Newport
Beach Municipal Code Section 21.30.100 Scenic and Visual Quality Protection. The project was found to not
have one or more of the characteristics listed in subsection (B) of the aforementioned code section as the site
is not located between the first public road and the sea, is not on a coastal bluff or canyon, and it is not
adjacent to or within the viewshed of a public view point, a coastal view road, a public park or beach,
or a public accessway, as identified on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map 4-3 Coastal Views, and does not
contain significant natural landforms or vegetation.
Assistant Planner Perez stated that the surrounding land uses are residential and vary in density from R-1
(Single-Unit Residential), immediately adjacent to the project site, to RM (Multiple Residential) across the street.
The streetlight is separated from the R-1 residences by a steep landscaped downslope. Given the grade
differential, the lower setting of the streetlight lessens any visual obtrusion from the proposed small cell facility
and prevents the equipment from being within the line of sight for the existing R-1 development. The steep,
landscaped hillside provides visual masking of the small cell facility as the streetlight is not isolated or the only
visible feature within the general area. There are many streetlights along this stretch of Bayside Drive and the
proposed project will blend in with the surrounding streetscape and existing streetlights. The overall height of
the replacement pole and equipment is 27 feet, 5 inches and is approximately 7 feet taller than the exiting
streetlight pole. The existing pole is approximately 19 feet high; however, its luminaire height is 20 feet 6 inches.
The proposed streetlight with small cell equipment is under maximum allowed height of 35 feet for telecom
facilities and is consistent with the Zoning Code.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020
Page 5 of 8
Ms. Perez continued that the replacement streetlight pole design is consistent with the size, shape, style, and
design of that existing, including the attached light arm and luminaire. The new luminaire height will match the
existing luminaire height. The proposed streetlight will look like the existing streetlight with the addition of the
shrouded telecom equipment on top of the pole. Visual simulations of the facility, depicting the existing and
proposed conditions, have been prepared by the applicant and are included as Attachment No. ZA 6 of the
staff report.
Assistant Planner Perez explained that the applicant has studied four alternative sites for this proposed project.
Their analysis is available as Attachment No. ZA 3 of the staff report. Ultimately none of the sites were found
suitable due to a variety of reasons. These reasons vary from conflicts with existing retaining walls, conflicts
with existing street trees, lack of space, incompatible slope material, and existing utilities/drainpipes.
Ms. Perez mentioned that staff had received multiple public comments in response to the proposed project.
Comments were regarding the feasibility of Alternative Site No. 4 and its aesthetic merits, as Alternative Site
No. 4 sits in front of a solar panel installation.
Ms. Perez stated that there is a correction needed in the draft resolution. Staff mistakenly wrote that the
streetlight was located between the first public road and the sea, however, Bayside Drive is the first public road
paralleling the sea and the streetlight is located to the east of Bayside Drive, making it outside of this area.
Applicant Franklin Orozco, on behalf of AT&T Mobility, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and
agrees with all of the required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing in the room and on the phone.
One member of the public, Robert Stemmler, stated that he had also submitted a written comment. The
adjacent R-1 residence mentioned by staff, located at 1409 Dolphin Terrace, belongs to his parents. The
Stemmler family objects to the installation of the telecom equipment at the proposed location and instead
believes Alternative Site No. 4 to be a superior option for a variety of reasons including topography, available
space, and the large solar panel array backdrop. Mr. Stemmler stated that the stairs which make Alternative
Site No. 4 not viable are not permitted, should not be there in the first place, and should therefore not be
considered when evaluating Alternative Site No. 4. Mr. Stemmler then explained that the landscaped hillside
adjacent to the proposed location provides seating areas for the homeowner’s enjoyment and their enjoyment
of those areas would be impacted by this installation.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing.
Zoning Administrator Murillo confirmed that he had received the public comments. In response to Zoning
Administrator Murillo’s question regarding the stairs at Alternative Site No. 4, Ms. Perez confirmed that the
stairs are not permitted nor allowed. In response to Zoning Administrator Murillo’s inquiry, Ms. Perez confirmed
that there is an encroachment agreement which allows landscaping at the proposed project site limited to a
height of 36 inches. Zoning Administrator Murillo stated that he had observed earlier that day during his site
visit that Alternative Site No. 4 is located at a curve on Bayside Drive and is highly visible to motorists and
pedestrians, whereas the proposed location is in line with the surrounding streetlights. Additionally, highly
landscape hillside at the proposed site provided visual interest and distraction.
Zoning Administrator Murillo asked staff to revise Fact 4 of “Section 1 Statement of Facts” of the draft resolution
to clarify why the project is exempt from a coastal development permit and to also add two conditions of
approval: 1) that any landscaping removed as a result of the project will be replaced and 2) that the applicant
will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Action: Approved as Amended
ITEM NO. 5 Buchannon Street Partners Medical/ Dentist Office Minor Use Permit No. UP2020-002
(PA2020-009)
Site Location: 20361 Irvine Avenue, Units B1 Council District 3