Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200910_ZA_MinutesMINUTES 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 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 facilities, 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 two 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 facility’s proximity 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 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 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.