Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Telecom topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newport Beach reviews code and policy changes to speed wireless deployments; public seeks more notice
Summary
City staff proposed moving public‑right‑of‑way wireless permitting into the public‑works code, exempting city sites from discretionary review, and issuing an RFP for roughly a dozen city sites; residents warned that removing discretionary review would limit public notice and oversight.
City staff told the Newport Beach City Council on Jan. 13 that the city's wireless ordinance, last updated in 2014, needs changes to reflect a shift from voice to data and the proliferation of connected devices.
Ben Zediba of the planning division summarized staff's three‑pronged approach: "code updates, policy updates, and partnerships," and recommended moving Class 3 public right‑of‑way installations out of Titles 20/21 and into Title 13 so many installations could be processed administratively rather than through discretionary public hearings. Zediba also noted coastal zone constraints and ongoing coordination with Coastal Commission staff.
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, the city's real property administrator, described proposed updates to City Council Policy L‑23 to streamline use of city‑owned or -managed properties for telecom installations while retaining lease and license agreements. She said staff would set rates in line with California Department of General Services guidance and "provide the city manager discretion to discount those DGS rates to facilitate locations that would improve coverage for the residents or address local gaps in coverage." Staff proposed issuing an RFP to invite carriers to partner on about a dozen city‑owned sites, encouraging collocation of macro sites to reduce the total number of towers.
Residents at the public hearing urged caution. Jim Mosher, a longtime Newport Beach resident, recounted a prior installation near his home and said the existing code was adopted to avoid surprising neighbors: "we should not park on our street ... because a contractor was going to come and install a cell site that the city had approved in front of our homes," Mosher said, arguing that removing public notice and discretionary review would prevent community input. Alicia Lucas, who said she has worked in the wireless industry for 25 years, urged the council to modernize rules so residents who work and rely on data have reliable service: "We need to have connection to our jobs to provide for our families."
Council members generally supported streamlining the application process to make the city more competitive for carrier investment while asking staff to preserve neighborhood protections. Council Member Grant asked how residents could object if discretionary review were removed; Whitlinger replied that for city‑directed sites carriers would still provide pre‑installation notices to residents within a 300‑foot radius and the city would address written objections and try to identify alternate locations. She said the city manager (and, in administration, the public works director if council directs) would retain discretion on final siting decisions.
No formal ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting; staff sought council feedback and took an informal show of hands on staff recommendations (the council did not finalize the RFP decision at that time). Staff said they would return with proposed code and policy text for council consideration and would continue coordinating with coastal staff on permitting approaches for sites inside the coastal zone.
