Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newport Beach staff propose code, policy and RFP steps to speed small‑cell deployments; public raises notice and health concerns
Summary
City staff recommended moving public right‑of‑way small‑cell rules into Title 13, exempting city‑owned sites from discretionary review, updating Policy L‑23 to use DGS rates and issuing an RFP for roughly a dozen sites; residents urged keeping public notice and raised health and transparency concerns.
City staff on Tuesday laid out a three‑pronged approach to increase wireless connectivity across Newport Beach: code changes, policy updates and partnerships, including a staff‑proposed request for proposals (RFP) for carriers to partner on city‑owned sites.
Ben Zediba, a city planner leading the presentation, told the council the municipal wireless ordinance has not been updated since 2014 and that deployment pressures have changed — “we have cars that rely on the network,” Zediba said — and that staff wants more agile permitting for evolving technologies. Staff proposed moving Class 3 public right‑of‑way installations out of Municipal Code Titles 20 and 21 and into Title 13 so many small‑cell applications can be processed administratively rather than through discretionary public hearings.
Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, the city’s real property administrator, described policy changes to City Council Policy L‑23 that would allow city‑managed and city‑owned sites to be exempt from specific planning code sections while carriers would still need leases or master license agreements. She said staff proposes tying city fees to California Department of General Services (DGS) published rates for small cells while giving the city manager discretion to discount those rates “to facilitate locations that would improve coverage for the residents or address local gaps in coverage.” She also described a planned RFP that would present about a dozen city‑owned sites to carriers and encourage co‑location to limit the total number of new structures.
Residents during public comment urged caution. Jim Mosier recounted a past installation that he said occurred without adequate neighborhood notice and urged keeping public opportunities for review: “Public input is very good, and I think any change to avoid that or eliminate that is not a good change.” Another resident said she had to walk outside to get cell service and, citing industry experience, argued that streamlined permitting is necessary for everyday connectivity: “We need it every day, morning, noon, and night,” Alicia Lucas said.
Council members pressed staff on notice and coastal‑zone differences. Zediba and Whitlinger said coastal‑zone sites would retain additional notice and review safeguards and that carriers are currently required to notify residents within a roughly 300‑foot radius prior to installation; staff said the city manager (and, under the proposed administrative approach, the public‑works director) would retain discretion to alter or reject locations based on resident objections and other impacts.
Council members generally supported narrowing discretionary review but expressed hesitation about an RFP at this time; one member said the city should not limit itself to partnering with a single carrier. After discussion the mayor called a straw vote on staff recommendations; the transcript records the straw‑vote call but does not provide a clearly readable numeric tally in the public audio record.
What’s next: Staff will draft specific code amendments, policy changes and an RFP scope for council consideration. Council asked staff to preserve coastal‑zone notice safeguards and to return with clearer procedures for resident objections and the city’s pre‑installation notice practice.
