Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_04-16-2020_ZA_Minutes - DRAFT Page 1 of 8 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ROOM THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2020 REGULAR MEETING – 3:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Staff Present: Jaime Murillo, Zoning Administrator Armeen Komeili, Deputy City Attorney Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner Chelsea Crager, Associate Planner Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Liane Schuller, Planning Consultant II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Staff requested Item Number 9 be continued to April 30, 2020. The item will be re-noticed. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2020 Action: Approved as Amended IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 716 Heliotrope, LLC Condominiums Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-017 (PA2019- 262) Site Location: 716 Heliotrope Avenue Council District 6 The Zoning Administrator introduced the item with no need for a staff presentation due to the simplicity of the request. He explained the map will allow the duplex to sell each unit as a condominium and the map has been conditioned to assess a park fee and remove the non-permitted improvements in the right-of-way along Heliotrope Avenue. Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner confirmed presence on the conference call and confirmed that she had received correspondence confirming that the applicant had reviewed and accepted all of the conditions. The Zoning Administrator explained that written correspondence was received from resident, Jim Mosher regarding combining repetitive conditions, and confirmed that this correction would be made to the resolution. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing in the room and on the phone. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Action: Approved as Amended ITEM NO. 3 AT&T Small Cell SLC0796 Minor Use Permit No. UP2019-030 (PA2019-111) MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020 Page 2 of 8 Site Location: Public right-of-way, City streetlight number SLC0796, at the northwestern corner of Balboa Boulevard and 30th Street Council District 1 Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner, 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. SLC0796, which is located within the public right-of-way adjacent to the northwestern corner of the Balboa Boulevard and 30th Street intersection. All surrounding land uses are residential and vary in density. This location is unique in that there is an approximately 20-foot wide landscaped parkway area buffering it from the nearest residence. This project requires the approval of a minor use permit. Senior Planner Zdeba continued that staff analyzed the project for consistency with the Coastal Act and determined it does not negatively impact any designated public view corridors nor does it negatively impact coastal access and resources. In consultation with Coastal Commission staff, it was determined the proposed replacement streetlight pole and small cell installation does not require the issuance of a coastal development permit. Furthermore, the streetlight pole is not located between the first public road paralleling the sea and the sea and the project is consistent with Section 21.49.050(B) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan), which aims to protect and enhance scenic resources. 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 height as the current streetlight pole. However, the new equipment will extend up to an overall height of 34 feet, 9 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 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 height for the abutting residential zoning districts is 29 feet to the ridge of a sloping roof. The current streetlight pole sits just above the allowed height at 29 feet, 9 inches. The proposed streetlight pole with the proposed equipment on top would extend to an overall height of 34 feet, 9 inches and would not appear out of scale with the structures in the area. It is also notable that in many other areas, there are taller wooden utility poles. 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 five 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. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020 Page 3 of 8 Each of the five alternative sites were determined to be unviable due to limited accessibility around a slightly wider pole, proximity to overhead powerlines, and location within an approved underground assessment district. Lastly, Senior Planner Zdeba stated that one piece of written correspondence was received prior to the staff report being published citing concerns related to health and safety impacts. Three additional pieces of written correspondence were received, two from an attorney, Mark Pollock, representing a resident and one from Jim Mosher. Mr. Zdeba concluded that staff believed all required findings can be made and recommended approval of this project. Zoning Administrator Murillo requested clarification as to why all the alternative sites were in such close proximity to one another. In response, Mr. Zdeba stated that the small cell wireless facilities are considered “micro” sites and have a smaller radius of transmission. They are intended to work in conjunction with larger macro sites. He also added that, although not required, the applicant provided coverage maps to identify the present gap in coverage that exists without the proposed site. Zoning Administrator Murillo stated that there are taller, mature palm trees adjacent to the site and that there should be a condition of approval added about compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Mr. Zdeba indicated that condition would be added, if approved. In response to the correspondence received from Mr. Mosher, Zoning Administrator Murillo also requested additional information as to why the project was exempted from a coastal development permit. Mr. Zdeba stated that NBMC Section 21.52.035(c)(4) (Repair and Maintenance) is the operative section that was identified as being appropriate for the replacement of a streetlight with a small cell facility installation in consultation with Coastal Commission staff. Applicant Franklin Orozco, on behalf of the AT&T Mobility, 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 of 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 in the room and on the phone. Matthew Tanner, a resident at 209 30th Street, stated that everyone in his area was opposed to the project and expressed concerns about the potential health and safety impacts of the proposal. He submitted his written comments for the record. Denise Fenton, owner of the Beach Coin Laundry, also expressed concerns about the potential health and safety impacts of the proposal. She further added that the proposal is not aesthetically pleasing. Mark Pollock, attorney, referenced his submitted written correspondence and stated his disagreement that the Zoning Administrator has the authority to act on this application and that for the subsequent Item No. 4, under NBMC Section 20.49.080. He further expressed concerns with the applicant entity and its validity under the executed Master License Agreement with the City. He also expressed concern with the insurance requirements. Brenda Martin, a resident at 206 ½ 30th Street, cited health concerns and expressed opposition to the project. She submitted her written comments into the record. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. Zoning Administrator Murillo acknowledged the stated health and safety concerns brought forward during the public comments section, but reiterated that the City does not have authority to restrict emissions or operation MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020 Page 4 of 8 of the facility. Furthermore, he indicated that a decision cannot be rendered on account of the same concerns. Lastly, he noted that the City’s review is limited to aesthetics and land use compatibility, and that a more recent Federal Communications Commission ruling requires the City to accommodate such facilities within the public rights-of-way. In response to Mr. Pollock’s comments from his March 25, 2020, letter, Deputy City Attorney Armeen Komeili, stated that staff reviewed the two license agreements referenced in Mr. Pollock’s letter and the insurance requirements and has confirmed said insurance requirements have been met and certified by the correct entity. With respect to pollution liability, neither agreement has a pollution liability clause; therefore, it is not required. With respect to Mr. Pollock’s contention that the City has the ability to restrict or regulate the operation of these facilities, Deputy City Attorney Komeili stated that the Ninth Circuit has not yet opined on this matter, but the Second Circuit has stated that local governments are limited to regulating location, placement and modification, and cannot regulate the operation. As such, the City Attorney’s Office recommends against using the Minor Use Permit as a mechanism to restrict the operation of the facility. 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 further stated his agreement that this is the best location when considering all five alternative locations. Finally, he provided additional language under statement number four of “Section 1 Statement of Facts” with respect to the Coastal Development Permit exemption. The Zoning Administrator approved the project and found it exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under the Class 2 and 3 exemptions. Action: Approved as Amended ITEM NO. 4 AT&T Small Cell SLC4653 Minor Use Permit No. UP2019-034 (PA2019-115) Site Location: Public right-of-way, City streetlight number SLC4653, on the north side of Bayside Drive, approximately 900 feet northwest of El Paseo Drive Council District 5 Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant is requesting a minor use permit to allow the replacement of a City streetlight and the subsequent installation of telecom equipment for a small cell wireless facility. The streetlight proposed for the project, City Streetlight Number SLC4653, is located on the northeast side of Bayside Drive, approximately 900 feet northwest of El Paseo Drive. This streetlight is within the coastal zone and therefore initially evaluated in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 21.30.100 Scenic and Visual Quality Protection. The project was found to not have one or more of the characteristics listed in subsection (B) of the aforementioned code section as the site is not located within the first public road and the sea, is not on a coastal bluff or canyon, and it is not adjacent to or within the viewshed of a public view point, a coastal view road, a public park or beach, or a public accessway, as identified on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map 4-3 Coastal Views, and does not contain significant natural landforms or vegetation. Assistant Planner Perez stated that the surrounding land uses are residential and vary in density from R-1 (Single-Unit Residential), immediately adjacent to the project site, to RM (Multiple Residential) across the street. The streetlight is separated from the R-1 residences by a steep landscaped downslope. Given the grade differential, the lower setting of the streetlight lessens any visual obtrusion from the proposed small cell facility and prevents the equipment from being within the line of sight for the existing R-1 development. The steep, landscaped hillside provides visual masking of the small cell facility as the streetlight is not isolated or the only visible feature within the general area. There are many streetlights along this stretch of Bayside Drive and the proposed project will blend in with the surrounding streetscape and existing streetlights. The overall height of the replacement pole and equipment is 27 feet, 5 inches and is approximately 7 feet taller than the exiting streetlight pole. The existing pole is approximately 19 feet high; however, its luminaire height is 20 feet 6 inches. The proposed streetlight with small cell equipment is under maximum allowed height of 35 feet for telecom facilities and is consistent with the Zoning Code. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Perez continued that the replacement streetlight pole design is consistent with the size, shape, style, and design of that existing, including the attached light arm and luminaire. The new luminaire height will match the existing luminaire height. The proposed streetlight will look like the existing streetlight with the addition of the shrouded telecom equipment on top of the pole. Visual simulations of the facility, depicting the existing and proposed conditions, have been prepared by the applicant and are included as Attachment No. ZA 6 of the staff report. Assistant Planner Perez explained that the applicant has studied four alternative sites for this proposed project. Their analysis is available as Attachment No. ZA 3 of the staff report. Ultimately none of the sites were found suitable due to a variety of reasons. These reasons vary from conflicts with existing retaining walls, conflicts with existing street trees, lack of space, incompatible slope material, and existing utilities/drainpipes. Ms. Perez mentioned that staff had received multiple public comments in response to the proposed project. Comments were regarding the feasibility of Alternative Site No. 4 and its aesthetic merits, as Alternative Site No. 4 sits in front of a solar panel installation. Ms. Perez stated that there is a correction needed in the draft resolution. Staff mistakenly wrote that the streetlight was located between the first public road and the sea, however, Bayside Drive is the first public road paralleling the sea and the streetlight is located to the east of Bayside Drive, making it outside of this area. Applicant Franklin Orozco, on behalf of AT&T Mobility, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing in the room and on the phone. One member of the public, Robert Stemmler, stated that he had also submitted a written comment. The adjacent R-1 residence mentioned by staff, located at 1409 Dolphin Terrace, belongs to his parents. The Stemmler family objects to the installation of the telecom equipment at the proposed location and instead believes Alternative Site No. 4 to be a superior option for a variety of reasons including topography, available space, and the large solar panel array backdrop. Mr. Stemmler stated that the stairs which make Alternative Site No. 4 not viable are not permitted, should not be there in the first place, and should therefore not be considered when evaluating Alternative Site No. 4. Mr. Stemmler then explained that the landscaped hillside adjacent to the proposed location provides seating areas for the homeowner’s enjoyment and their enjoyment of those areas would be impacted by this installation. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. Zoning Administrator Murillo confirmed that he had received the public comments. In response to Zoning Administrator Murillo’s question regarding the stairs at Alternative Site No. 4, Ms. Perez confirmed that the stairs are not permitted nor allowed. In response to Zoning Administrator Murillo’s inquiry, Ms. Perez confirmed that there is an encroachment agreement which allows landscaping at the proposed project site limited to a height of 36 inches. Zoning Administrator Murillo stated that he had observed earlier that day during his site visit that Alternative Site No. 4 is located at a curve on Bayside Drive and is highly visible to motorists and pedestrians, whereas the proposed location is in line with the surrounding streetlights. Additionally, highly landscape hillside at the proposed site provided visual interest and distraction. Zoning Administrator Murillo asked staff to revise Fact 4 of “Section 1 Statement of Facts” of the draft resolution to clarify why the project is exempt from a coastal development permit and to also add two conditions of approval: 1) that any landscaping removed as a result of the project will be replaced and 2) that the applicant will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Action: Approved as Amended ITEM NO. 5 Buchannon Street Partners Medical/ Dentist Office Minor Use Permit No. UP2020-002 (PA2020-009) MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020 Page 6 of 8 Site Location: 20361 Irvine Avenue, Units B1 Council District 3 Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant is requesting a minor use permit to operate a new dental office within The Jetty, an existing office park. The project site is located on Irvine Avenue, near Mesa Drive, and is zoned SP-7/PA (Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Professional & Administrative Office District) and the General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is General Commercial Office. The proposed dental office would occupy an approximately 2,700 square-foot suite on the first floor of Building B. The proposed dental office will operate with only one dentist, one dental assistant, and one administrative assistant at any given time. The practice will provide standard, nonsurgical, dental procedures and is anticipated to see seven to eight patients a day for an average visit of 45 minutes. The facility will operate with standard business hours i.e. approximately 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. The proposed use will be of a moderate intensity and consistent with the purpose and intent of the PA zoning district. Additionally, there is adequate parking available onsite. Ms. Perez explained that while a dental or medical office use is not specifically listed within the PA zoning district as an allowed use subject to approval of a minor use permit, a recent Director’s Determination found that medical office uses and similar uses are consistent with the purpose and intent of the PA District and therefore allowed, subject to the approval of a minor use permit if the project exhibits three specific characteristics including: 1) operates similarly to the surrounding tenants, specifically with similar hours and similar days of the week, 2) has a limited number of staff and patients as to maintain a moderate intensity of use, and 3) has adequate parking available onsite. Zoning Administrator Murillo stated that the Director’s Determination referenced in the staff report was to become effective at close of business on April 15, 2020, and Ms. Perez confirmed that no appeals to the determination had been received. Phil Greer, on behalf of the applicant, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing opened the public hearing in the room and on the phone. Hearing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. After closing the public hearing, Zoning Administrator Murillo stated that the Planning Commission has previously reviewed three similar applications of whether medical is a compatible use for this district and has found each time that the use is compatible. He further clarified that up to 20 percent of the complex can be used for medical without affecting parking and with this approval, medical uses would increase to only 16 percent of overall uses and thus still be a subordinate use. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 6 TNS Development LLC Residence Coastal Development Permit No CD2020-009 (PA2020-010) Site Location: 706 West Ocean Front Council District 1 Liane Schuller, Planning Consultant, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 4,280-square-foot, single- family residence with a roof deck and attached 809 square feet of garage parking for three cars. Garage access is currently taken from the Ocean Front alleyway, and the new garages will maintain this same orientation. The project has been reviewed and cleared by the Public Works Department for access and right-of-way issues. A coastal development permit is required for the demolition and new construction on a site located within the coastal zone. The project complies with all applicable development standards, including the standards and approval requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program. Public coastal access is provided and will continue to be provided by street ends throughout the neighborhood leading to the public beach area, and there is no intensification of use that would create an increased demand for access and recreation opportunities. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020 Page 7 of 8 Ms. Schuller confirmed that the applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with the findings and recommended conditions of approval in the draft Resolution. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing in the room and on the phone. Hearing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 7 LIV Integrative Health Minor Use Permit No. UP2020-001 (PA2020-007) Site Location: Site Location: 20201 Birch Street Council District 3 Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that LIV Integrative Health, the Applicant, proposes to establish a multidisciplinary wellness center within the tenant space of an existing professional office building. The property is categorized as Business Park District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP-7/BP), wherein medical offices and service businesses are allowed through the approval of a minor use permit. The wellness center would encompass a spectrum of health services: general medical and chiropractic care, massage therapy, acupuncture, nutritional coaching, and therapeutic fitness (yoga and Pilates). Around five wellness professionals would render services one-on-one during operation. All activities are appointment-based and proposed to happen Monday through Saturday with varying times between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m., daily. LIV Integrative Health provides specialized, individual care by appointment, and this lower type of intensity is expected to maintain compatibility with nearby professional office uses. Mr. Achis continued that project implementation would consist of a limited tenant improvement to bring the existing suite into compliance with Building Code accessibility requirements. No complaints have been filed for the Applicant’s existing wellness business, which is one block away, nor has any negative parking impact been perceived as a result of its operation. Approval of this Minor Use Permit would allow the existing wellness center to relocate to the subject site. An existing general office currently occupies the subject suite, but conversion to a medical office in this case does not increase parking demand as the building would total less than 20 percent medical office. Applicant Karin Yurkovich, co-owner of LIV Integrative Health, stated that she had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing in the room and on the phone. Hearing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 8 Orange County Charters Limited Term Permit No. XP2020-003 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-011 (PA2020-022) Site Location: 1221 West Coast Highway Council District 3 Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that Orange County Charters proposes to temporarily operate a captained charter boat business with on-site shared parking at the Balboa Bay Resort. Chartered excursions are expected to occur once a day, last four to nine hours, and board up to 15 persons, counting crew and passengers. The proposed boat charter operation will be used and operated independently, but complementary to, the existing uses on-site and others in the vicinity that foster coastal activity for residents and visitors. While the Balboa Bay Club Planned Community District Regulations (PC45) do not mention charter operations as an allowed accessory use by name, a limited term permit allows limited duration uses that might not meet the development or use standards of the applicable planned community, but may be acceptable because of their temporary or limited nature. Considering the small-scale and appointment-based character of the charter boat proposal, operation would not function as a typical general public service that may otherwise conflict with Balboa Bay Resort uses. The proposed dock and communal passenger loading dock is existing and no construction or physical MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 04/16/2020 Page 8 of 8 alterations are proposed; consequently, the proposal bears no impact on coastal access, views, or recreational opportunities. The proposal is for a temporary use and the operation must conclude one year after the effective date of this approval, unless an extension is granted by the Zoning Administrator in compliance with NBMC Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions), or unless a new discretionary application for the continuation of the use is approved. If the use is operated or maintained in a manner that constitutes a public nuisance, or proves to be detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity, Condition of Approval No. 11 reserves authority for the Zoning Administrator to modify or revoke this approval. A public comment from Mr. Jim Mosher was received regarding availability of on-site parking during summer months and carpooling/ride sharing to the site. The Zoning Administrator directed to staff to incorporate a condition of approval for the Applicant to encourage carpooling and ridesharing to the greatest extent practicable. He also revised a condition to require additional parking counts conducted during summer months to accompany any future permit extension request. Applicant Elliot Block, owner of Orange County Charters, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing in the room and on the phone. Hearing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Action: Approved as Amended ITEM NO. 9 Bragg Lot Merger No. LM2019-006 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-068 (PA2019-250) Site Location: 107 and 109 Via Yella Council District 1 Action: Continued to the April 30, 2020, Zoning Administrator meeting V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. VI. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on April 10, 2020, at 4:15 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 April 10, 2020, at 4:20 p.m. Jaime Murillo Zoning Administrator April 30, 2020, Zoning Administrator Agenda Comments Comments submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Draft Minutes of April 16, 2020 Suggested Corrections Page 2 of 8, end paragraph 4: “All equipment and supporting equipment will either be contained within the pole itself, behind a shroud/screen, or underground in a vaulted area.” [missing comma] Page 3 of 8, paragraph 7, sentence 2: “He also clarified that the site is a “pico” small-cell site, which does not have as wide of a range of as macro sites.” Page 4 of 8, Item 4, paragraph 1, last sentence: “The project was found to not have one or more of the characteristics listed in subsection (B) of the aforementioned code section as the site is not located within between the first public road and the sea, …” Page 7 of 8, Item 8, paragraph 1, sentence 3: “The proposed boat charter operation will be used and operated independently of, but complementary to, the existing uses on-site and others in the vicinity that foster coastal activity for residents and visitors.” Page 8 of 8, paragraph 2, sentence 1: “The Zoning Administrator directed to staff to incorporate a condition of approval for the Applicant to encourage carpooling and ridesharing to the greatest extent practicable.” Comment Page 3 of 8, paragraph 6, says: “In response to the correspondence received from Mr. Mosher, Zoning Administrator Murillo also requested additional information as to why the project was exempted from a coastal development permit. Mr. Zdeba stated that NBMC Section 21.52.035(c)(4) (Repair and Maintenance) is the operative section that was identified as being appropriate for the replacement of a streetlight with a small cell facility installation in consultation with Coastal Commission staff.” Whatever Coastal Commission staff may do elsewhere, this interpretation of NBMC Title 21 seems clearly erroneous, especially in view of the explicit requirement in Section 21.49.020.B to obtain a CDP for construction of this type, which parallels the requirement under Section 20.49.020.B of Title 20 to obtain a MUP for Class 3 projects (which this is acknowledged to be). True, Section 21.52.035(c)(4) exempts “repair or maintenance activities.” But nothing in Chapter 21.70 (Definitions) or in Section 21.52.035(c)(4) suggests that the terms “repair” or “maintenance” as used in Title 21 carry anything other than the normal meanings. The installation of cell equipment on a larger replacement streetlight pole is clearly neither “repair” nor “maintenance” of the existing pole. It is the creation of something entirely new and unrelated to the object’s previous purpose. Adding a take-out taco stand to a single family residence would not be “repair” or “maintenance.” Why is this? Zoning Administrator - April 30, 2020 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of April 16, 2020