Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200813_ZA_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 08/13/2020 Page 2 of 4 ITEM NO. 3 AT&T Small Cell SLC4735 Minor Use Permit No. UP2019-027 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-101 (PA2019-108) Site Location: Public right-of-way, City streetlight number SLC4735, center median of Avocado Avenue at the intersection Kewamee Drive and Avocado Avenue Council District 6 Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner, indicated he would be presenting on behalf of project planner Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner. He started by providing context and background on small cell wireless facilities. He noted they are being widely deployed throughout the country as a leading solution to solving coverage gaps and increased data demands. They are also intended to work in conjunction with the larger, macro facilities on a carrier’s network and service a smaller area. He stressed that the City’s review of these, and all wireless facilities, is largely limited by federal law and is narrowed to focus primarily on land use compatibility, aesthetics, and environmental impacts. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exclusively sets standards for radio frequency or “RF” emissions. As such, the City is not able to base any recommendation on potential health and safety impacts. He added that on February 12, 2019, the Newport Beach City Council authorized the execution of a Master License Agreement with AT&T, authorizing non-exclusive use of City-owned streetlights to install wireless telecommunications facilities and included approved designs, fee and rent assessments. Senior Planner Zdeba then continued to provide a brief project description noting that AT&T is requesting to remove and replace City Streetlight No. SLC4735, which is located within the public right-of-way in a center median on Avocado Avenue near the Kewamee Drive intersection. All immediately surrounding land uses are residential and vary in density. This project requires the approval of a minor use permit and a coastal development permit. Senior Planner Zdeba continued that staff analyzed the project for consistency with the Coastal Act. Of particular concern is access to coastal resources and potential for negative impacts to coastal views, both identified and non-identified. Staff visited the site, reviewed the visual simulations provided by the applicant and determined it does not negatively impact any designated public view corridors nor does it negatively impact coastal access and resources. Specifically, under Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Subsections 20.49.050(b) and 21.49.050(b), review is required in accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection) and General Plan Natural Resources Element Policy NR 20.3 (Public Views). The location is not located within a protected public view corridor and therefore would not have any impact to public views. The streetlight pole is not located between the first public road paralleling the sea and the sea. The project is consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, which aims to protect and enhance scenic resources. He added that staff’s analyses regarding NBMC Section 20.30.100 were included in the staff report, but did not make it into the draft Resolution. As such, he indicated that an additional fact should be added under Findings B and J. Mr. Zdeba stated that the replacement streetlight pole will be purposed with maintaining the intent of the City’s streetlight inventory. It will maintain the same exact luminaire heights as the current streetlight pole. However, the new equipment will extend up to an overall height of 27 feet, 5 inches from grade. All equipment and supporting equipment will either be contained within the pole itself, behind a shroud/screen, or underground in a vaulted area. From a Municipal Code perspective, Mr. Zdeba stated that this type of facility is considered a Class 3 (Public Right-of-Way) installation and falls lower on the preferential list of installation types. The first two classes are stealth facilities, which are often housed on top of existing commercial and multi-family residential structures, and visible facilities, which are exposed antennas on existing commercial and multi-family residential structures. Given the lack of taller commercial buildings in the area, these more-preferred classes were determined to be unviable. Senior Planner Zdeba explained that although it does fall lower on the priority list, this facility is designed to blend into the streetscape without visually dominating the area. Maintaining the same luminaire height as the current pole will help to maintain consistency with the surrounding streetlights in the area. Furthermore, the Code discusses development standards including blending and screening. The proposed facility is located MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 08/13/2020 Page 3 of 4 adjacent to a wide parkway area that is one of the largest in the area. It is planted with taller landscaping, including palm trees, which will serve as a softening buffer between the residential structures beyond. With respect to heights in the area, the maximum allowable heights for the abutting residential zoning districts are 29 feet and 33 feet to the ridge of a sloping roof. Mr. Zdeba added that another component of staff’s review is alternative sites in the area that may be better-suited for the proposed facility. The applicant provided analysis for three other sites in the vicinity. Attachment No. ZA 3 to the staff report goes into each alternative site in more detail and provides photographs as well. Each of the three alternative sites were determined to be unviable or less desirable due to varying constraints. Lastly, Senior Planner Zdeba stated that one piece of written correspondence was received from Jim Mosher providing minor edits to the draft Resolution and calling the appeals process into question. Mr. Zdeba concluded that staff believed all required findings can be made and recommended approval of this project. Franklin Orozco of AT&T Mobility, on behalf of the applicant, New Cingular Wireless, LLC, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all the required conditions. He also clarified that the site is a “pico” small-cell site, which does not have as wide of a range as macro sites. The range of a pico cell site is approximately 750 to 1,000 feet, which is why they typically only look at alternative locations within 250 feet of the targeted site. He also explained why a macro site was not feasible in this particular area and indicated that there will be several applications for similar projects coming forward. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher spoke and expressed appreciation for staff’s clarifications made in response to his comments, but reiterated his concern for why the adjacent condominium building and/or office buildings were not considered as part of the alternative sites analysis. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. 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 also clarified the appeals process noting that based on his reading of the Code, the entire project could be appealed to the Planning Commission without any fee, but that the City Attorney’s Office would need to review that interpretation for accuracy. The Zoning Administrator approved the project with the small changes made in the draft Resolution and found it exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under the Class 2 and 3 exemptions. Action: Approved as Amended V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS One member of the public, Jim Mosher, inquired if the small cell installation on Bayside Drive would have another Zoning Administrator public hearing. Senior Planner Zdeba confirmed that two previously approved facilities would be heard at the August 27, 2020, Zoning Administrator meeting for coastal development permit review. VI. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 10:27 a.m.