Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201022_PC_MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes October 22, 2020 6 of 13 Commissioner Rosene remarked that the existing streetlight at Alternative Site 3 is not ADA compliant, but the appellant preferred that location. Perhaps the applicant would be willing to construct an ADA-compliant streetlight and facility at Alternative Site 3. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to approve the staff recommendation with staff's proposed amendments. AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene NOES: Kleiman ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ITEM NO. 5 AT&T SMALL CELL SLC4653 APPEAL (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 Summary: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s August 27, 2020, decision to approve a coastal development permit allowing the installation of a small cell wireless facility on a City-owned streetlight pole. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a de novo public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15302 and 15303 under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), respectively, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and the exceptions to the Class 3 exemption under Section 15300.2 do not apply; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-035 affirming the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approving Coastal Development Permit CD2020-118 with the attached Findings and Conditions. Assistant Planner Joselyn Perez reported small cell technology is a solution to fill coverage gaps and is intended to work with existing macro facilities. The City's review of applications for wireless facilities is limited by federal laws. On February 12, 2019, the City Council approved an MLA with Cingular Wireless for the use of City-owned streetlights. On April 16, 2020, the Zoning Administrator approved a minor use permit for the facility. A call for review was attempted by a Planning Commissioner; however, said call for review occurred after the designated appeal period had expired and the use permit became effective. Subsequently, staff determined a CDP is required for the facility. On August 27, 2020, the Zoning Administrator approved a CDP for the facility, and Mr. Mosher filed an appeal of the decision, citing inadequate consideration of alternative locations and collocations. The proposed facility is located within the vegetated parkway along the landward side of Bayside Drive, which is the first public road paralleling the sea. Land uses surrounding the proposed site are primarily residential. The application proposes to replace the existing streetlight with a new streetlight in the same location. The height of the luminaire would remain the same, but the overall height of the facility would increase to 27 feet 5 inches. Antennas and radio equipment will be enclosed in a shroud located atop the pole. All equipment for the facility will be located within the shroud or below grade. The vegetated hillside behind the streetlight softens the view of the streetlight. The applicant analyzed four alternative sites along Bayside Drive. Staff and the Zoning Administrator reviewed these sites as well. Assistant Planner Perez provided a PowerPoint presentation with visual simulations of the proposed installation and photographs of alternative sites. Alternative Site 1 is located in front of a coastal bluff and is not considered an appropriate location because of the need to grade into the bluff to install below-grade equipment and other reasons. Alternative Site 2 is also located in front of the same coastal bluff and is not considered an appropriate location for the same reasons as Alternative Site 1. Alternative Site 3 presents challenges due to surrounding low retaining walls which would need to be relocated. Public comment favored locating the facility at Alternative Site 4 due to the solar panels blighting the bluff behind the streetlight. However, the facility would stand out against the existing solar panels. In addition, Alternative Site 4 is located in a curve Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2020 7 of 13 of the roadway will be in the line of sight of motorists and bicyclists. Staff finds the application is consistent with the LCP, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and City standards. There is no sidewalk located adjacent to Bayside Drive in this area, therefore the project will have no impact on the publics ability to access the coast. Staff recommends revising Finding B Fact 1 on page 5 of the resolution to state Finding A.9 rather than Finding A.5. In response to Commissioner Koetting's question, Assistant Planner Perez advised that Alternative Site 4 conflicts with existing street trees and the storm drain system. The applicant should respond to its business interests. Commissioners Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Rosene, Kleiman, and Koetting, Vice Chair Lowrey and Chair Weigand disclosed no ex parte communications. Chair Weigand opened the public hearing. Cory Autrey, applicant's representative, reiterated his comments regarding the benefits of utilizing existing streetlights and federal and state legislation supporting carriers' rights to utilize the public right-of-way. There is no guideline regarding the number of alternative sites that should be analyzed. Because small cell facilities cover a small area, analyzing alternative sites outside the coverage area is not logical. Franklin Orozco, applicant's representative, indicated a typical alternative site analysis will include only the two poles adjacent to the proposed site because of the limited coverage area of a small cell facility. Three-sided retaining walls have been constructed around the streetlights at the alternative sites. Installing below-grade equipment at these sites would require grading into the bluff and expanding the retaining walls by 6-8 feet. The streetlight at Alternative Site 4 conflicts with an existing drain and trees and is more prominent than other sites because the roadway curves at the site. Jim Mosher, appellant, reported one of his reasons for appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision was Chair Weigand's attempt to call the decision for review. The Planning Commission, rather than the Zoning Administrator, should determine which site is appropriate. Based on the applicant's representative's statement, future applications may propose locating small cell facilities on every other streetlight. The lack of information regarding an overall plan for facilities is disturbing. Concentrating technology at Alternative Site 4 is not necessarily a bad idea. In his opinion, Alternative Site 4 is not visually more prominent than other sites. He objected to siting the facility at Alternative Site 2 as the Coastal Act protects bluffs. Locating the facility in the Bayside Marina parking lot could affect views less than other locations, but the parking lot is located in the prohibited area between the sea and the first public road. T-Mobile has located a facility at the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club. Although the yacht club is located between the sea and the first public road, a facility is allowed on the site because there is an existing building and facility. The yacht club location could be outside the proposed coverage area. In response to Chair Weigand's and Commissioner Koetting's questions, Mr. Autrey reiterated the need to grade into the bluff to expand the retaining walls and to install the underground vault at Alternative Site 4. The construction would affect a drain and a nearby stairway and likely require the removal of a tree. The applicant does not consider a facility constructable at Alternative Site 4. The location of the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club is located too far away from the identified area. The applicant is focusing on installing small cell facilities in public rights-of-way, which it has the right to do. The existing facility at the yacht club is a macro cell, and the carrier's coverage objective for the site appears to be different from the applicant's objective. In his opinion, adding the facility to a streetlight would impact the view less than adding a third chimney atop the yacht club. Mr. Orozco added that the Alternative Site 1 is in front of a residence rather than a parking lot. Nancy Scarbrough agreed with Secretary Kleiman's comments regarding resolving these issues without involving the Coastal Commission. Chair Weigand closed the public hearing. Secretary Kleiman concurred with staff’s analysis for this application. The proposed site does not conflict with the LCP Implementation Plan. A cost-benefit analysis should be prepared in light of the time spent on these Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2020 8 of 13 applications and the limited coverage area of small cell facilities. Carriers should provide a comprehensive plan for wireless facilities. Motion made by Commissioner Ellmore and seconded by Secretary Kleiman to approve the staff recommendation with staff’s proposed modification. AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ITEM NO. 6 CHIHUAHUA CERVEZA EXPANSION (PA2019-160) Site Location: 3107 Newport Boulevard and 3109 Newport Boulevard Summary: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Coastal Development Permit for the expansion of an existing restaurant into the adjacent commercial suite. The application includes a 25-space parking waiver and a change to the existing alcohol license from a Type 41 ABC License (Beer and Wine) to a Type 47 (On-Sale General Eating Place). The application also includes a request to allow limited live entertainment in the form of two non- amplified performers and no late hours past 11 p.m. or dancing are proposed. If approved, the subject CUP would supersede the existing CUP (UP2010-036). Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-036 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-035 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-001. Associate Planner David Lee reported the restaurant is located in The Landing Shopping Center, which has an onsite parking lot providing 236 parking spaces. The center is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and includes a grocery store, multiple restaurants, and retail and service uses. The project is an expansion of the existing restaurant into the adjacent suite. The floor area of the restaurant will increase from 1,878 interior square feet to 2,616 interior square feet, and the floor area for the patio will increase from 259 square feet to 626 square feet. The applicant requests an upgrade of its Type 41 ABC license to a Type 47. The applicant proposes to change the hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily to 6:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday for the interior and 6:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily for the exterior. Staff proposes a condition of approval prohibiting alcohol service prior to 9 a.m. Currently, live entertainment is not permitted. The applicant requests live entertainment on Tuesdays and Saturdays from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Associate Planner Lee indicated that Chihuahua Cerveza is located in Suite 3107, and Suite 3109 was previously occupied by a takeout establishment. The existing back of house, kitchen, and restrooms will remain in Suite 3107. Suite 3109 will include an expanded dining room, bar area with 15 seats, beer and liquor storage, and expanded patio dining. The current parking requirement for the shopping center is one space per 200 square feet. The shopping center is required to provide 240 parking spaces but provides 236 spaces with a five-space parking waiver. The expansion of the restaurant will cause the parking requirement to be calculated for each use. With this change, the site is required to provide 261 parking spaces and will have a deficit of 25 spaces. A parking study was conducted in May 2019 and found 57 percent occupancy at peak demand. With the expansion of Chihuahua Cerveza, occupancy will increase to 66 percent at peak demand. Consequently, the existing parking lot will accommodate the expansion. Associate Planner Lee further reported the restaurant is located in Reporting District 15, which has an undue concentration of ABC licenses and a high crime rate. However, the Police Department has reviewed the application and has no objections to it because the applicant does not propose late hours. The applicant will be required to obtain an Operator's License if the application is approved. Based on the applicant's request for live entertainment, staff has proposed conditions of approval limiting performances to acoustic only and the number of performers to a maximum of two and requiring the closure of all doors and windows during performances. The applicant obtained