Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSTAM_003 Statement of ComplianceStatement of Code Compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”) Chapter 20.49 and Chapter 13.20 Below, we identify the applicable code criteria and demonstrate our compliance or acknowledgement of each provision. 20.49.040 Telecom Facility Preferences and Prohibited Locations. A. Preferred Locations. To limit the adverse visual effects of and proliferation of new or individual telecom facilities in the City, the following list establishes the order of preference of facilities, from the most preferred (1) to least preferred (4). 1. Collocation of a new facility at an existing facility. 2. Class 1. 3. Class 2 and Class 3. 4. Class 4. B. Prohibited Locations. Telecom facilities are prohibited in the following locations: Applicant Response: AT&T is proposing a Class 3 facility that replaces an existing concrete designed streetlight with a new similar concrete designed replacement pole. The design is consistent with the design of the existing pole and the type of infrastructure currently in the right of way. The design is consistent with the designs depicted and allowed pursuant to the Master License Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for the Use of City-Owned Streetlights for Telecommunication Facilities (“MLA”). As explained in the previous Alternative Analysis, a collocation or Class 1 or 2 facility would not be technically feasible in this location from an RF or construction perspective. Small cells are low power and must be located at the precise location selected to serve the network traffic demands of that specific and limited area. This type of service enhancement cannot be accomplished with a traditional macro collocation or building mounted site in this area. The site is not located in any of the locations prohibited by NBMC §20.49.040.B.1-4. 20.49.050 General Development and Design Standards. A. General Criteria. All telecom facilities shall employ design techniques to minimize visual impacts and provide appropriate screening to result in the least visually intrusive means of providing the service. Such techniques shall be employed to make the installation, appearance and operations of the facility as visually inconspicuous as practicable. To the greatest extent feasible, facilities shall be designed to minimize the visual impact of the facility by means of location, placement, height, screening, landscaping, and shall be compatible with existing architectural elements, building materials, other building characteristics, and the surrounding area. Applicant Response: The Applicant has selected a design that minimizes visual impacts and is appropriately screened to result in the least visually intrusive means of providing service. The site will be placed in the right- of-way and will be virtually unnoticeable as this is the type of infrastructure one would expect to see in the right-of-way. The facility is compatible with the architectural design of existing right-of-way infrastructure with respect to color, materials, scale and compatibility with the surrounding area. It matches the existing pole in scale and design and will not result in any net add of right-of-way infrastructure. Utilities are placed below grade and are not visible. In addition to the other design standards of this section, the following criteria shall be considered by the review authority in connection with its processing of any MUP, CUP, LTP, or ZC for a telecom facility: 1. Blending. The extent to which the proposed telecom facility blends into the surrounding environment or is architecturally compatible and integrated into the structure. Applicant Response: The facility blends into the surrounding environment and is compatible and integrated into the replacement structure. It matches the existing pole in terms of scale, color and materials and is consistent with expected infrastructure that exists in the right-of-way. 2. Screening. The extent to which the proposed telecom facility is concealed or screened by existing or proposed new topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures. Applicant Response: The site is screened to the extent that it matches and is concealed within a streetlight replacement pole. 3. Size. The total size of the proposed telecom facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and supporting structures. Applicant Response: The scale and total size of the proposed facility is consistent with existing right-of-way infrastructure. The new luminaire is consistent with the size, location and functioning of the luminaire being replaced. The 10” diameter of the new pole is consistent with and substantially similar to the diameter of the existing pole which is 9” at the location being measured. The pole height is almost identical except for the antenna enclosure at the top, which is also consistent with the design in terms of scale and width. The presence of communication equipment at this site will be virtually unnoticeable to the casual passerby. 4. Location. Proposed telecom facilities shall be located so as to utilize existing natural or manmade features in the vicinity of the facility, including topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures to provide the greatest amount of visual screening and blending with the predominant visual backdrop. Applicant Response: The location in the right-of-way is appropriate as it is consistent with infrastructure expected to be located in the right-of-way. One of the purposes of the right-of-way is to accommodate infrastructure that will serve the needs of the community, so it is the appropriate place for this type of facility. 5. Collocation. In evaluating whether the collocation of a telecom facility is feasible, the criteria listed in subsections (A)(1) through (4) of this section shall be used to evaluate the visual effect of the combined number of facilities at the proposed location. Applicant Response: Collocation on this facility is not technically feasible from an RF and construction standpoint. Requiring a collocation on this facility would increase the visual impact and scale of this site. B. Public View Protection. All new or modified telecom facilities, whether approved by administrative or discretionary review, shall comply with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). Additionally, potential impacts from a new or modified telecom facility to public views that are not identified by General Plan Policy NR 20.3 shall be evaluated to determine if inclusion in Policy NR 20.3 would be appropriate. If deemed appropriate for inclusion, the potential impacts to such public views shall be considered. Applicant Response: This section is not applicable to this facility as it is not in an area that is subject to Public View Protection. C. Height. 1. The Planning Commission or City Council may approve or conditionally approve a CUP for a telecom facility that exceeds the maximum height limit for the zoning district in which the facility is located; provided, it does not exceed the maximum height limit by fifteen (15) feet, only after making all of the required findings in Section 20.49.060(H) (Required Findings for Telecom Facilities). Applicant Response: The height limitation for facilities located in the public right-of-way is 35 feet. NBMC §20.49.050.C.3. The facility complies with this standard as it does not exceed 35 feet. 2. All telecom facilities shall comply with height restrictions or conditions, if any, required by the Federal Aviation Administration, and shall comply with Section 20.30.060(E) (Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport and Airport Land Use Commission Review Requirements) as may be in force at the time the telecom facility is permitted or modified. Applicant Response: This provision is not applicable to this facility. 3. Telecom facilities installed on streetlights, utility poles, utility towers or other similar structures within the public right-of-way shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height above the finished grade. Applicant Response: The facility complies with this standard as it does not exceed 35 feet. 4. Telecom facilities may be installed on existing utility poles or utility towers that exceed thirty-five (35) feet above the finished grade where the purposes of the existing utility pole or utility tower is to carry electricity or provide other wireless data transmission; provided, that the top of the proposed antennas do not extend above the top of the utility pole or utility tower. Applicant Response: This provision is not applicable to this facility. 5. Telecom facilities disguised as flagpoles may be installed provided they meet applicable height limits for flagpoles provided in Section 20.30.060. Applicant Response: This provision is not applicable to this facility. D. Setbacks. Proposed telecom facilities shall comply with the required setback established by the development standards for the zoning district in which the facility is proposed to be located. Setbacks shall be measured from the part of the facility closest to the applicable lot line or structure. Applicant Response: This provision is not applicable as the facility is located in the right-of-way and replaces an existing structure. Also, the code specifically provides for a setback exception for light standards. NBMC § 20.30.110.D.11. E. Design Techniques. Design techniques shall result in the installation of a telecom facility that is in harmony and scale with the surrounding area, screens the installation from view, and prevents the facility from visually dominating the surrounding area. Design techniques may include the following: Applicant Response: The facility is in harmony and scale with the surrounding area. The new concrete designed pole is substantially similar in size and scale to the existing pole and the materials, design and color match. The facility is compatible with infrastructure that exists in the right-of-way and will be installed in the same location as the pole that is being replaced. The facility will not visually dominate the surrounding area. 1. Screening elements to disguise, or otherwise hide the telecom facility from view from surrounding uses. Applicant Response: The facility is a combination light pole and wireless facility and the antennas and other equipment components will be concealed within the pole. 2. Painting and/or coloring the telecom facility to blend into the predominant visual backdrop. Applicant Response: The facility will be concealed within a light pole and will be the same color and finish as the pole being replaced. 3. Siting the telecom facility to utilize existing features (such as buildings, topography, vegetation, etc.) to screen or hide the facility. Applicant Response: The facility is being sited in the right-of-way and will be installed in the same location as the pole being replaced and will have the same color and finish. 4. Utilizing simulated natural features (trees, rocks, etc.) to screen or hide the telecom facility. Applicant Response: The facility is a light pole replacement, a structure that is expected to be located in the right-of-way, will be installed in the same location as the pole being replaced, and will have the same color and finish. 5. Providing telecom facilities of a size that, as determined by the City, is not visually obtrusive such that any effort to screen the facility would create greater visual impacts than the facility itself. Applicant Response: The facility is not visually obtrusive and is consistent with the size, scale, color and appearance of existing right-of-way infrastructure. 6. To the greatest extent practicable, new Class 4 facilities shall be designed and sited to facilitate the collocation of one additional telecom operator. Applicant Response: This criterion is not applicable as this facility is not a Class 4. F. Screening Standards. For collocation installations, the screening method shall be materially similar to those used on the existing telecom facility, and shall not diminish the screening of the facility. If determined necessary by the review authority, use of other improved and appropriate screening methods may be required to screen the antennas and support equipment from public view. The following is a non-exclusive list of potential design and screening techniques that must be considered for all facility installations: Applicant Response: This criterion is not applicable as this facility is not a collocation. 3. For Class 3 (Public Right-of-Way) Installations. a. Whenever feasible, new antennas proposed to be installed in the public right-of-way shall be placed on existing utility structures, streetlights, or other existing vertical structures. Antenna installations on existing or replacement streetlight poles or utility poles shall be screened by means of canisters, radomes, shrouds other screening measures whenever feasible, and treated with exterior coatings of a color and texture to match the existing pole. Applicant Response: The facility design meets this criterion. The antenna is screened behind a cannister that is on top of the pole. It will be the same color and texture as the existing pole. b. New or replacement vertical structures may be allowed when authorized by the Municipal Code and approved by the Public Works Department. Replacement poles or streetlights shall be consistent with the size, shape, style, and design of the existing pole, including any attached light arms. New poles or streetlights may be installed, provided they match existing or planned poles within the area. Applicant Response: The facility design meets this criterion and is allowed pursuant to the NBMC and the MLA. This replacement pole is substantially the same size, shape, style and design of the existing pole. It also has a luminaire that is the same height and brightness as the existing pole. c. If antennas are proposed to be installed without screening, they shall be flush-mounted to the pole and shall be treated with exterior coatings of a color and texture to match the pole. Applicant Response: This provision is not applicable as the antennas will be screened. 6. Support Equipment. All support equipment associated with the operation of any telecom facility shall be placed or mounted in the least visually obtrusive location practicable, and shall be screened from view. Applicant Response: Support equipment is either concealed or installed below grade and has no visual impact. b. Installations in a Public Right-of-Way. The following is a non-exclusive list of potential screening techniques for telecom facilities located in a public right-of-way: i. Where existing utilities services (e.g., telephone, power, cable TV) are located underground, the support equipment shall be placed underground if required by other provisions of the Municipal Code. Flush-to-grade underground vault enclosures, including flush-to-grade vents, or vents that extend no more than twenty-four (24) inches above the finished grade and are screened from public view may be incorporated. Electrical meters required for the purpose of providing power for the proposed telecom facility may be installed above ground on a pedestal in a public right-of-way provided they meet applicable standards of Title 13 unless otherwise precluded by the Municipal Code. Applicant Response: The utilities serving this facility are either installed below grade or are concealed within the replacement pole. No above ground pedestals are proposed. ii. Support equipment approved to be located above ground in a public right-of-way shall be painted or otherwise coated to be visually compatible with the existing or replacement pole, lighting and/or traffic signal equipment without substantially increasing the width of the structure. Applicant Response: This provision is not applicable as no above ground support equipment is proposed. iii. All transmission or amplification equipment such as remote radio units, tower mounted amplifiers, and surge suppressors shall be mounted inside the utility or streetlight pole without materially increasing the pole diameter or shall be installed in the vault enclosure supporting the facility. Applicant Response: The transmission equipment is concealed within the pole. G. Night Lighting. Telecom facilities shall not be lighted except for security lighting at the lowest intensity necessary for that purpose or as may be recommended by the United States Flag Code (4 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.). Such lighting shall be shielded so that direct illumination does not directly shine on nearby properties. The review authority shall consult with the Police Department regarding proposed security lighting for facilities on a case-by-case basis. Applicant Response: No lighting is proposed other than the replacement luminaire which is being installed at substantially the same height and is the same brightness as the existing pole. H. Signs and Advertising. No advertising signage or identifying logos shall be displayed on any telecom facility except for small identification, address, warning, and similar information plates. Such information plates shall be identified in the telecom application and shall be subject to approval by the review authority. Signage required by State or Federal regulations shall be allowed in its smallest permissible size. Applicant Response: The facility complies with this criterion. The only signage proposed is the required notice signage, facility owner information and signage and banners required to be installed by the City. I. Nonconformities. A proposed or modified telecom facility shall not create any new or increased nonconformity as defined in the Zoning Code, such as, but not limited to, a reduction in and/or elimination of, required parking, landscaping, or loading zones unless relief is sought pursuant to applicable zoning code procedures. Applicant Response: The facility complies with the code and will not create a zoning code nonconformity. J. Maintenance. The telecom operator shall be responsible for maintenance of the telecom facility in a manner consistent with the original approval of the facility, including but not limited to the following: 1. Any missing, discolored, or damaged screening shall be restored to its original permitted condition. Applicant Response: The Applicant acknowledges that it is responsible for maintaining the site consistent with its original permitted condition. 2. All graffiti on any components of the telecom facility shall be removed promptly in accordance with the Municipal Code. Applicant Response: The Applicant acknowledges this requirement. 3. All landscaping required for the telecom facility shall be maintained in a healthy condition at all times, and shall be promptly replaced if dead, dying, or damaged. Applicant Response: No landscaping is proposed for this installation. 4. All telecom facilities shall be kept clean and free of litter. Applicant Response: The Applicant acknowledges this requirement. 5. All equipment cabinets shall display a legible contact number for reporting maintenance problems to the telecom operator. Applicant Response: The Applicant is not proposing equipment cabinets. 6. If a flagpole is used for a telecom facility, flags shall be flown and shall be properly maintained at all times. The use of the United States flag shall comply with the provisions of the U.S. Flag Code (4 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.). (Ord. 2014-1 § 10 (part), 2014) Applicant Response: The Applicant is not proposing a flagpole. 20.49.060 Permit Review Procedures. H. Required Findings for Telecom Facilities. The following findings shall apply to all facilities requiring discretionary review: 1. General. The review authority may approve or conditionally approve an application for a telecom facility only after first finding each of the required findings for a MUP or CUP pursuant to Section 20.52.020 (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits), or an LTP pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits), and each of the following findings: a. The proposed telecom facility is visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant Response: The facility is visually compatible with the surrounding area. The facility design is allowed pursuant to the MLA and applicable code and is substantially similar in design, shape, size, color and texture as the existing pole. All related equipment is either installed below grade or is concealed within the interior of the replacement light pole. b. The proposed telecom facility complies with height, location and design standards, as provided for in this chapter. Applicant Response: The 35-foot-tall facility complies with the height, location and design standards. It is a Class 3 facility located in the right-of-way and meets the City approved design standards per the code and the MLA. c. An alternative site(s) located further from a residential district, public park or public facility cannot feasibly fulfill the coverage needs fulfilled by the installation at the proposed site. Applicant Response: The Applicant has provided an alternative analysis that addresses this criterion. No alternative site locations would fulfill the network needs that are fulfilled by this installation at this proposed specific location. d. An alternative plan that would result in a higher preference facility class category for the proposed facility is not available or reasonably feasible and desirable under the circumstances. Applicant Response: As explained previously, small cells are designed to enhance network capacity and must be precisely located in a specific area to properly function due to their low power and limited range. A higher preference class facility would not be technically feasible and would not fulfill this specific network need.