Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 - Draft Minutes November 5, 2015 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, November 5, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER-The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Hillgren III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand,Zak ABSENT: Koetting, Kramer Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine; Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez; Associate Planner Ben Zdeba; Principal Planner Jim Campbell; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle; Administrative Support Technician Traci Makinen IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski requested, on behalf of the applicant, to table Item No. 2 on the agenda. Noting prior consideration and comments by the Planning Commission, she reported that the applicant is working on re-designing the project and that the matter will be re-noticed for review at the Planning Commission's meeting in December. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to table Item No. 2 of the agenda per the applicant's request. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand, Zak ABSENT: Koetting, Kramer VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8,2015 Recommended Action: Approve and file Vice Chair Brown noted that there is no quorum in terms of the number of Commissioners required for approving this matter as two Commissioners are absent at this time, and another would have to abstain as he was absent during the subject meeting. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to continue this matter to the next regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand, Zak ABSENT: Koetting, Kramer VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 TROESH RESIDENCE (PA2015-122) Site Location: 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive Continued from October 8, 2015 This item was tabled to an upcoming Planning Commission meeting, under Requests for Continuances. Page 1 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 ITEM NO. 3 MAGIC NAILS PARKING WAIVER (PA2015-194) Site Location: 3404 Via Lido Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing location, the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), existing conditions, public access, surrounding properties, shared uses of the area, floorplan, parking requirements and deficit, findings and recommendations. She reported receiving a petition signed by multiple patrons of the business in support of the matter. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that no comments were received from DJM. She addressed the shared use by the nail salon and a jewelry store which are owned by separate entities. Brief discussion followed regarding the reason for the shared use. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Scott Sodders, Attorney representing the applicant, referenced the petition signed by patrons and noted acceptance of all Conditions of Approval. He offered to respond to questions from the Commission. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Sodders addressed sharing of the space by the nail salon and jewelry retailer. Vice Chair Brown asked whether anyone in the audience has an objection to the project and there was no response. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres suggested the Commission make a motion and open the public hearing if there are objections to same. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Lawler to adopt Resolution No. 1997 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-044. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Lawler,Weigand,Zak ABSENT: Koetting, Kramer ITEM NO. 4 VERIZON WIRELESS RIGHT-OF-WAY TELECOM APPEAL (PA2015-094) Site Location: 1 (CS) Narbonne (Northeast Corner of Spyglass Hill Road and EI Capitan Drive) Deputy Community Development Director Wisneki recused herself from this matter, as this is a Zoning Administrator item and departed the Chambers. Associate Planner Ben Zdeba provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing location, the project site, surrounding areas and uses, description of the project, maximum height, location of facility support equipment, facility classification, existing light standard, new light standard, background of the matter, consideration by the Zoning Administrator meeting, regulation of telecommunication facilities an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision and related concerns. He added that the Planning Commission is not bound by the Zoning Administrator's decision pursuant to the Zoning Code and presented recommendations. In response to the request of Vice Chair Brown, Associate Planner Zdeba noted that the applicant has additional photographs and simulations to present to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Zak's question, Associate Planner Zdeba reported there would be a license agreement between the City and Verizon, and that there would be some revenue to the City, on a monthly basis. In terms of the simulation provided to the Planning Commission, Associate Planner Zdeba reported Page 2 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 there is typically a disclaimer on required simulations, stating that they are not to scale and not intended to be as such but rather, for discussion purposes only. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the importance of safety, service capacity and aesthetics and wondered whether there are alternatives and changing technology that would provide different options for telecommunication facilities. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question, Associate Planner Zdeba reiterated that Title 47 of the United States Code prohibits the City from regulating the placement, construction and modification of wireless telecommunications facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. He added that it is as long as it complies with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines for those emissions. He reported that documentation submitted by the applicant addresses those concerns and certifies compliance with FCC guidelines. Commissioner Lawler asked regarding the rules on collocation and asked for information as to what can be expected in the future. Associate Planner Zdeba referenced the simulations and plans for this project and noted proposed structures intended to screen panel antennas. Those structures are very tight in relation to the antennas and he stated he does not foresee collocation opportunities at this specific site. In response to Vice Chair Brown's question, Associate Planner Zdeba reported that the City can regulate on the basis of aesthetics in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood and the surrounding environment. He added that the City cannot consider economic impact. Vice Chair Brown invited the appellant to address the Commission. Bruce Horn, appellant, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the purpose of the appeal. He asserted that Verizon misrepresented the information submitted to gain approval and stated that the findings in support of the recommendations are incorrect. He referenced photographs of existing cell towers in various areas in the City and commented on other sites considered by Verizon but abandoned due to proximity of residential structures. Mr. Horn opined that Verizon misrepresented the information submitted as the renderings of the stealth pole they submitted were not to scale. Additionally, he addressed the radome, incomplete coverage maps, exclusion of additional service strengths gained from two new Verizon sites, online resident polling results, and inadequacy of the facts provided to support the required findings. He expressed concerns with decreased property values as well as potential collocation towers by other carriers. Harry Skinner, M.D., Ph.D., spoke regarding the antenna, health effects and FCC requirements. He reported that the FCC does not care about any health effects unless heating occurs. He addressed exposure in terms of proximity to the antennas, occupational population and general permissible limits, and on the spread of radiation relative to the antennas. He alleged that significant heating will occur and commented on potential actions to reduce same. K. Eddie Mehrfar, Ph.D., reported he was responsible for the online poll and explained the process and details of results. He asked whether Commissioners would approve such a facility close to their homes and urged that it grant their appeal. Renee L. Barton, PA-C, commented on the dangers of radio-frequency electro-magnetic fields emitted by wireless telecommunications facilities, addressed other cities who have prohibited them from being built near schools and parks, and urged the Commission to uphold the appeal. Brenda McCroskey, Realtor, stated she would like to see telecommunications facilities away from populated areas, addressed home values and expressed concerns regarding reduced property values. Additionally, she asserted that Verizon has misrepresented the size of the tower. Page 3 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 In response to Commissioner Lawler's question regarding consideration of economic impacts, Associate Planner Zdeba reported that none of staffs findings relate to economic impacts so that there is not fact to refute economic findings in this case. Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres added that the Commission has before it, the findings it needs to make or not make in order to approve or deny the project. None of the findings, presented by staff, specifically reference economic impacts. If the Commission wants to approve the project it has to make all of the findings. If the Commission wants to deny the project, it has to find that it cannot make at least one of the findings. Commissioner Hillgren referenced concerns about collocation and asked for clarification from the appellant regarding same. Mr. Horn referenced the coverage area and opined that in order to obtain the desired coverage, additional cell towers will need to be installed. He believed that once the cell tower is installed, another provider will not be able to make installations in that same location. Commissioner Hillgren stated that in terms of economic impacts, what is being presented are impacts on views. He asked whether there are examples relative to impacts on views. Mr. Horn stated he does not currently have the information, but added that the tower will be visible and that approximately 35 homes will be impacted. In response to Commissioner Zak's question as to whether the project would be acceptable if the City did not allow for collocation, the residents in attendance noted that they would still object to it. In terms of health and economic concerns, Commissioner Zak stated that the Commission's hands are tied and asked for elaborations. Mr. Horn referenced a finding indicating that the facility will fit into the community and not create impacts and felt that the statement is not true, as the facility will be readily seen and does not blend with the community. Associate Planner Zdeba confirmed that Spy Glass Hill Park is a City park. Commissioner Zak asked whether the City or the applicant considered "stealthing" the facility and Associate Planner Zdeba deferred to the applicant to provide greater detail on alternative site designs considered. Vice Chair Brown invited the applicant to address the Commission. Kevin Sullivan, Legal Counsel for Verizon, provided a PowerPoint presentation noting the attendance of members of a team who will be able to respond to technical questions. He provided a description of the project and addressed the existing pole, size and location of the proposed pole, antennas, use of existing trees for screening the facility, and location of supporting equipment. He referenced two engineering reports certifying that the facility fully complies with the Health and Safety standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in coordination with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). He presented an overview of the site and addressed location of surrounding residences and structures, view simulations, signal coverage, service and data capacity, nearby recently-approved sites, consideration of alternative sites, locations and challenges of each, collocation and safety. He reiterated that the facility fully complies with the Health and Safety standards set by the FCC. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning Administrator's approval, as proposed. Commissioner Lawler asked for expanded information relative to aesthetics and service. He noted that the information was not presented, to scale and asked regarding service, in terms of the effect of the new Ford Road site. Mr. Sullivan noted that the Ford Road site has not yet been built is 1.3 miles away from the subject site and lower in elevation. Because of interfering topography issues, there is no ability to project the radio frequency (RF) signal to the gap area associated with Spy Glass Hill Park. The Ford Road site was specifically designed to provide coverage in its area and is not capable of servicing the subject area. In terms of providing renderings "to scale", Mr. Sullivan deferred to members of the team but pointed out the dense canopy of the existing vegetation. Page 4 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 Commissioner Weigand noted there could be a storm or significant tree-trimming and asked for information on regarding the longevity of the trees. Associate Planner Zdeba stated there are no current plans to remove the trees. Mr. Sullivan stated that the photo simulations provide a substantially accurate representation but there are no exact, to-scale photos. However, he did address the specifications of the proposed facility, including the radome. Commissioner Lawler questioned why there were not any scale photo simulations and noted that the Commission cannot weigh in on safety and economic effects, but it can on aesthetics, which seems to be a major concern of nearby residents. Mr. Sullivan noted that a scaled rendering could be provided to the City by the Verizon planning team, as soon as possible. Commissioner Hillgren asked for further information regarding service coverage and requested Verizon's Engineer's response. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that if Verizon did not need this site, they would not spend the money to build it. When engineers provide information that there is a significant coverage gap, it is relied upon, especially as it relates to the significant associated expenses. Additionally, he noted that some of the information may be proprietary. Commissioner Hillgren referenced potential damage to existing trees and Mr. Sullivan noted that Verizon would be responsible for replacing damaged trees. Commissioner Zak referenced the coverage maps and Mr. Sullivan explained the coverage area and significant gaps in the Spy Glass Hill area as well as coverage with and without the proposed facility in terms of data transmittal and capacity. Carriers need to keep up with data capacity issues. Commissioner Zak referenced various letters and documentation submitted including the vicinity map, coverage and the proposed coverage. He asked for clarification and Mr. Sullivan reported the information was provided by a Radio-Frequency engineer and that the data shown illustrates the various levels of coverage. Commissioner Zak asked regarding community outreach and Mr. Sullivan indicated that they did not. Commissioner Zak noted the Commission's limitations and felt there is no demonstration relative to making a finding that the facility is compatible with the existing area because the visual simulation is inaccurate. Based on the need for additional information, Mr. Sullivan requested a continuance of the item in order to provide more-accurately scaled simulations. Vice Chair Brown summarized the discussion, instructed the public of the protocol and opened the public hearing. Commissioner Lawler added that in terms of aesthetics, it has been determined that more and accurate information is needed. He noted that the Commission is focusing on aesthetics and that economic impact and safety are not within the Commission's jurisdiction. K. Eddie Mehrfar, Ph.D., referenced a meeting with City staff and a representative of Verizon and commented on the proposed underground vault being denied by Southern California Edison. Pam Munro referenced Finding E in the report in terms of the facility not being materially detrimental to property owners and businesses in the area. She opined that it is clearly, materially detrimental and that economic impact is covered under same. She referenced a previous speaker in terms of decreased property Page 5 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 values and noted that although the Commission cannot consider health aspects for its determination, potential buyers, will. She believed it is within the Commission's discretion to consider economic impacts. Rick Roshan spoke in opposition to the project and stated that if the facility is as small as it is purported to be, Verizon should be able to bring it to show the Commission and residents. He reported his experience with calls and data and stated he has no problem with the existing coverage in the neighborhood. Additionally, he suggested alternative sites and urged the Commission to approve the appeal. Dr. H. Dajee commented on his experience with calling and data, noting that he has not experienced any problems in the area. He expressed concerns that the facility will impact his views of the issue and alleged that Verizon has minimized impacts on views for their benefit. He voiced concern regarding decreased property values and health impacts, Therese Lockerback commented on the quality of the community and noted the community opposes the project. She expressed concerns that the City is not listening to the people, who care about the community, and commented on government being "by the people and for the people". She asked that the Commission approve the appeal and ask Verizon to locate somewhere else. Ken Krantz opined that photos shown by Verizon were taken to minimize the appearance of the proposed tower. He referenced the coverage map and felt that the vast improvement occurs in the canyons and not residential areas. He addressed the Ford Road facility and questioned the need of the facility if it will benefit residents but residents oppose it. Hapreet Sandhu alleged misrepresentation by the City and City Attorney, claiming that consideration of economic impact is allowed in other jurisdictions. He noted that reduced property values affect all property owners as well as City revenue. He opined that the City should wait to see how the Ford Road facility works and its impacts, before making a decision on this project. Armen Gugasian commented on the city and its residents and opined that Verizon does not care about the city, but rather generating money. He spoke in opposition to the project and stressed that residents do not want the facility in their area. Dean Stratton opined that the Verizon presentation was misleading, referenced changes in the existing trees and asked that the Commission approve the appeal. He added that if the matter should be continued, the Commission should require that Verizon fund a rebuttal by the residents. Debbie Djee commented on the quality of cell reception in her home, stated that no one was notified regarding the project and urged the Commission to approve the appeal. Brenda McCroskey commented on a 2003 request by the American Academy of Pediatrics to the FCC to change their guidelines, which are from 1996. Laurie Horn, appellant, spoke in opposition to the proposed project and reported having great cell service in her area. She stated that the area does not need another cell tower and expressed concerns regarding aesthetics. She hoped that the Commission will approve the appeal. Jim Damon noted that the Spy Glass Hill Homeowners Association's CC&Rs restrict the height of trees and vegetation. He expressed concerns regarding loss of views and decreased property values. Jim Mosher commented on the number of residents attending the Zoning Administrator's meeting and expressed concerns regarding the absence of simulations. He opined the facilities stick out as sore thumbs and referenced proposed coverage and felt that the technical information provided seems sloppy and confusing. He felt that alternative locations could be feasible and alleged that Verizon did not, competently consider the matter. He added that he does not believe the City's hands are tied considering that this involves public property and felt the proposed is not good use of public property. Vice Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Page 6 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 Vice Chair Brown requested Assistant City Attorney Torres or Associate Planner Zdeba address Ms. Munro's question regarding Finding E - Economic Impact. Regarding Finding E - Economic Impact, City Attorney Torres said if you go through the conditions that are inside the staff report and the Municipal Code nothing there explicitly addresses the Economic Impact to surrounding properties. Assistant City Attorney Torres indicated he understands what the speakers are saying and how they are trying to tie that in and if that is something the Planning Commission would consider as a detrimental impact, the economics, Mr. Torres indicated he thinks the Commission wouldn't be forbade from doing that. However, there is nothing explicitly that does talk about Economic Impact here so if you want to consider that as a secondary effect if you were considering that as a detrimental impact. Assistant City Attorney Torres thinks possibly you could consider that through that route but there is nothing explicitly within these findings in our Municipal Code that references the Economic Impact on a property. Vice Chair Brown asked whether Verizon can present the equipment or a simulation of same, something that could be seen. Mr. Sullivan stated that Verizon can provide an accurately-scaled photo simulation, but would not be able to bring the antenna structure, itself into the chambers. Vice Chair Brown directed another question to Associate Planner Zdeba regarding looking at the effects of the Ford Road facility prior to creating this tower. Mr. Zdeba indicated that staff relies on documents provided by the Applicant. It is not included in the coverage maps since it is not yet up and running however, as the applicant stated they would not be pursuing the site if it was not bridging a gap in coverage under their perception. With that, Vice Chair Brown brought it back to the Commission for a straw vote to determine how the other Commissioners felt about a continuance. Commissioner Hillgren indicated he felt there was enough evidence for a continuance. Commissioner Lawler indicated he was struggling with this and focused on aesthetics and safety, however as he considered Finding E and the operation of the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, if what the City Attorney indicated that we could broaden and interpret that, then he would be unable to make that Finding. So he indicated that although he was focused on aesthetics if he could not make Finding E he would not be up for a continuance, he would support rejecting the project. Commissioner Zak indicated he was glad that clarification was made on the Economic Impacts. He indicated there were several Findings that he was having trouble making. With regard to design and aesthetics he felt even if there was another hearing it would be so subjective. He felt even if he saw a simulation in front of him he was not sure he wouldn't still think it was an impact and did not support a continuance. Commissioner Weigand indicated that he was in support of the project until he started hearing testimony from the public and looking at the trash can as this was the only evidence of what this is going to look like. He indicated that he was having trouble with the Findings as well. He indicated after hearing from the public that numerous residents were Verizon customers and did not have problems with coverage. He feels there is no urgency with this cell site and would like to see the applicant come back in six—twelve months after the other site goes online and see if that makes a difference. He indicated that he was struggling with Finding C as well and felt there may be an alternative site that would work. He indicated his support of reversing the Zoning Administrator's decision. Vice Chair Brown indicated that when the offer to continue came up it was a way for them to look at this. He indicated he felt that Verizon underestimated the resistance here. He felt that they needed to work a little closer with the residents and was disappointed that there was no outreach. He agreed with Commissioner Weigand that there has to be an alternative location. He went back to a comment made by Mr. Mosher indicated he was not sure why this signal didn't go uphill. He is not sure or convinced that it could not go up higher. He feels that with this sort of public concern that it just needs to be looked at more closely and really work to try and find an alternative. He feels his vote would be to deny as well. He felt that would put Verizon in a position to look more closely at alternatives and come back with something that is more compatible with the public particularly the residents of this neighborhood. He urged Verizon to work with them and do more outreach with them so that when we come back with a solution it is of mutual benefit to the community and Page 7 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 Verizon. At this time he reached out to the Commission to see if anyone was willing to make a motion to reverse the decision. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to deny the Zoning Administrator's decision approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2015-024. Assistant City Attorney Torres made a request to Vice Chair Brown to speak to the basis for the denial. Assistant City Attorney Torres noted that the denial must be based on the findings and requested summarizing what he has heard. At least as to Finding "a" of Section 20.49.060(H), the Finding that is required is the proposed Telecom Facility is visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission has heard substantial evidence that it is not visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Verizon has not submitted any evidence of what the tower will look like. In fact the only evidence that has been submitted is by the appellant, is the trash can simulation which roughly shows what it will look like in scale, even this has been represented to be a little bit smaller. So with the absence of evidence submitted by the Applicant as to an accurate representation of what the telecom facility will look like and with the substantial evidence that has been submitted the Commission is finding that is not aesthetically, visually compatible with the neighborhood and the evidence that has been submitted both by Verizon and in their coverage maps and by the Appellant and the numerous speakers there is coverage in this area so a denial tonight based on aesthetics will not result or constitute a prohibition on the provision of wireless services in this community. So even with the denial there will still be Verizon Wireless service in the community. Vice Chair Brown indicated he felt that was accurate. He also felt that the detrimental effect to economic impacts should be broadened. He felt this was important as that was a major issue here. Assistant City Attorney Torres agreed with Vice Chair Brown and indicated that is something else he heard. That is a different finding under 20.52.020(F)(5) [referenced as "Finding E"] and in that the Commission has heard testimony tonight from realtors and members of the community that the installation of a wireless facility at this particular location will have a detriment impact on the neighborhood as well as potentially the economic impact on surrounding properties and could result in a decrease in property values because of a result in visual blight and otherwise disrupt the view of existing homes in the community both in the park and the residential structures. Vice Chair Brown indicated he felt that was accurate. Without further discussion Vice Chair Brown called for a vote. At this juncture Commissioner Hillgren requested to speak. Commissioner Hillgren indicated he has wrestled with this. He has heard all of the comments and is highly sympathetic to the number of voices on these issues. He indicated they are very constrained as it relates to the topics that they can opine on. He does not feel he has seen evidence either way as it relates to visual impacts. He has seen some simulations that he does not feel work to sufficiently describe what Verizon is putting up, but he has not seen anybody really point out something that shows how this is impacting the view. So for someone to suggest that this is blocking the view, he cannot really find that argument and cannot make the leap as it relates to economics. If he could see a view that was impacted he might be able to hazard a guess as to maybe there might be an economic impact, but he can't from what he has seen tonight get to that point. So while he is sympathetic to the issue he feels they need to balance in their roles as Commissioners with respect to land use issues. He also noted the there are responsibilities for our City to provide access for public service utilities and noted this is one of them. He was hopeful for a continuance and felt that was wise and noted a number of issues that were raised. Both the residents as well as Verizon could better illuminate for this Commission. He noted that City Council can vote based on number voices, but the Planning Commission has to vote based upon specific issues, which they are constrained to. For these reasons he has wrestled with this and is not sure which way he will vote. However he feels it is important to understand those topics, because they don't base things on the number of people that talk on an issue. Commissioner Lawler indicated he struggled with that too. He indicated consideration of a continuance as he did not have a sense of the aesthetics. But when Finding E was broadened — the detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth, regardless of the aesthetics, he feels they would all agree that it is not Page 8 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 aesthetically pleasing, even if it is remotely close, it is not aesthetically pleasing. Perception becomes reality and perception among a lot of people there today is it is detrimental to their community. He indicated he lives in the Port streets among their community and understands. He does have bad cell service in the Port streets and is a Verizon customer. He indicated if he was just voting on service he would vote to have the tower, but with that said he understands the perception and how that affects value and does believe that perception is detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City and everything that is in Finding E. Therefore he cannot make that Finding and is why he made the motion that he made. Assistant City Attorney Torres indicated there was one other finding that he heard the Commission make tonight in regard to 20.49.060(H)(1)(c), and the availability of an alternative site. The Commission felt based on the evidence submitted that Verizon had not adequately demonstrated that they had considered and reviewed other alternative sites farther away from a public park or at least farther than this location that may work to meet their coverage needs. That was another reason the Commission was finding that they could not approve this project. Commissioner Weigand added the other site has yet to go online. Once that does go online the Commission could take a second look at it. Verizon could come back and the situation could be re-evaluated. Vice Chair Brown inquired if anything in their action tonight would preclude Verizon from going back to the drawing board and coming back. Assistant City Attorney Torres believed it was a 12-month prohibition on them coming back with this application if it is a denial. Commissioner Weigand inquired if there was a way for them as Commissioners to waive that. Assistant City Attorney Torres indicated there was not as it is in the Code. Commissioner Zak indicated he was with Commissioner Hillgren on the continuance. As they further discussed the matter Finding E came into play and that was what tipped it for him, but again if we came back and had another hearing, this is such a subjective thing and you have people who are living right around this park and enjoy the beauty of the park and looking out their window and seeing a cell tower, to them is displeasing. So that is why it is not going to change, we are just going to hear it all over again and that is not going to change. Just to expand on that, there are two Findings that were made in the Resolution for approval, Finding C which speaks on the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity and disagreed with that Finding, so that speaks to aesthetics. Finding lowercase a with the additional findings talks about it being visually compatible with the surrounding community. Both of those are where he is stuck, in addition to Finding E. Vice Chair Brown confirmed with Assistant City Attorney Torres on the expansion of the Findings the Commission couldn't make. Assistant City Attorney Torres confirmed he had added Commissioner Weigand and Commissioner Zak's comments to his summary. Commissioner Weigand requested to go back to the 12 month ban. He wanted to know if it was for the location or throughout the City, as he was not good with the term ban. Associate Planner Zdeba noted that is it listed in Section 20.54.080 as "Resubmittals". This Section states for a period of 12 months following the actual date of denial with prejudice by the applicable review authority or if appealed the actual date of denial by the applicable review authority considering the appeal of a discretionary permit or amendment no application for the same or substantially similar permit or amendment shall be filed for the same site or any portion thereof. Vice Chair Brown feels that answers the question that Commissioner Weigand asked, that they are only talking about this site. Associate Planner Zdeba confirmed that is correct. Assistant City Attorney Torres clarified his earlier statement and said now that the code was in front of him there was an ability for the Commission to deny the application without prejudice per the Code, which would allow the applicant to come back without waiting 12 months. Page 9 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 Vice Chair Brown confirmed with Commissioner Lawler that he was in favor of amending his original motion and deny the Zoning Administrator's decision. Staff and Commissioners agreed to the amended motion. Amended Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to deny the Zoning Administrator's decision approving Minor Use Permit No. UP2015-024, without prejudice. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand, Zak ABSENT: Koetting, Kramer Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski returned to the Chambers. ITEM NO. 5 FORMER CITY HALL LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (PA2012-031) Site Location: 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32n Street, Northeast corner of Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street Commissioner Hillgren recused himself from this matter as he has a partnership interest with the management company related to the Lido House. He departed the Chambers. Principal Planner Jim Campbell gave a brief presentation including the background, Coastal Commission certification with suggested modifications, proposed changes to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code thereby accepting the Coastal Commission suggested modifications. He provided details of actions needed from the Planning Commission at this time and addressed recommendations. Vice Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher commented on language approved by the City and language approved by the Coastal Commission. He highlighted the prior exceptions to Policy 4.4.2-1 and his thought that a comprehensive approach is needed and he provided his comments to the Coastal Commission during the October meeting on the Amendments and hotel. Assistant City Attorney Torres commented on the compatibility of language with the Coastal Commission and the allowance of exceptions. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Zak to Adopt Resolution No. 1999 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2012-002, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2012-001, and Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2012-003 as modified to be consistent with the California Coastal Commission's suggested modifications to LC2012-001. AYES: Brown, Lawler, Weigand, Zak RECUSED: Hillgren ABSENT: Koetting, Kramer VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ITEM NO. 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the Implementation Plan is scheduled to go before City Council on November 10th, and noted next steps. 2. Update on City Council Items - None 3. Update on Newport Center Villas Page 10 of 11 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/5/15 Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski referenced and presented details of a memo received relative to Newport Center Villas which stated the applicant's intent to develop an Environmental Impact Report for the project. The item is expected to return to the Planning Commission in the spring. ITEM NO. 8 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski addressed items on the Commission's Tentative Agenda. ITEM NO. 9 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Commissioner Lawler reported the possibility of being absent or late for the November 19th Planning Commission meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of November 19, 2015. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, October 30, 2015, at 12:28 p.m. in the Chambers binder, 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 Friday, October 30, 2015, at 3:01 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Page 11 of 11 Planning Commission - November 19, 2015 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of November 5, 2015 Nov. 19, 2015, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2015 The following very minor suggested changes to the draft minutes passages in italics are shown in =F•°.,,.po^ t underline format. Page 4, paragraph 1: "in response to Commissioner Lawler's question regarding consideration of economic impacts, Associate Planner Zdeba reported that none of staf€s the findings relate to economic impacts so that there is flet no fact to refute a finding that could claim economic finding s impact in this case." [suggested corrections from audio recording at 55:00] Page 4, paragraph 8: "Associate Planner Zdeba confirmed that s Spyglass Hill Park is a City park." [note: the same correction to the spelling of"Spy Glass" is needed in three other places: last paragraph of page 4, paragraph 8 of page 5, and paragraph 3 from end of page 61 Page 5, paragraph 1: "Commissioner Weigand noted there could be a storm or significant tree- trimming and asked for information efl regarding the longevity of the trees." Page 5, paragraph 7 from end: "Commissioner Zak asked regarding community outreach and Mr. Sullivan indicated that they did not conduct any." Page 6, paragraph 2, sentence 2: "He expressed concerns that the facility will impact his views of the issae ocean and alleged that Verizon has minimized impacts on views for their benefit." [verified from recording at 1:41:25] Page 6, paragraph 3: "Therese ' ^^ rbanD Loutherback commented on the quality of the community and noted the community opposes the project." [corrected spellings based on citizens' petition submitted for record] Page 6, paragraph 5: "I4apreet Harpreet Sandhu alleged misrepresentation by the City and City Attorney, claiming that consideration of economic impact is allowed in other jurisdictions." Page 6, paragraph 8: "Debbie Djee Daiee commented on the quality of cell reception in her home, ..." Page 6, paragraph 2 from end, last sentence: "He added that he does not believe the City's hands are tied considering that this involves public property and felt the prepesed proposal is not good a use of public property." Planning Commission - November 19, 2015 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received November 19, 2015, PC agenda item 2 comments - Jim MosheDraft MInLf sec4 lovember 5, 2015 Page 7, paragraph 2, last sentence: "However, there is nothing explicitly that does talk about Economic Impact here so if you want to consider that as a secondary effect if you were considering that as a detrimental impact. then possibly you could consider that through that route but there is nothing explicitly within these findings in our Municipal Code that references the Economic Impact on a property." [note: starting with this paragraph at around 2:00:00 in the recording, parts of the draft minutes change from a relatively clean clerk's summary of what was said to a kind of note-like verbatim transcript of sections of words exactly as spoken —with all their grammatical errors and ambiguities. Cleaning up the spoken comments into a more conventional summary would require extensively rewriting these sections of the minutes. But inserting unspoken words, as here, to make the oral transcription look like a third party summary seems to make the meaning even harder to follow.] Page 9, paragraph 1, last sentence: "Therefore he cannot make that Finding and that is why he made the motion that he made."